# Ableist language



## Datura

Just wondering, since this is a safe-ish space and all, if ableist language is included in the new guidelines about no bigotry. If not, I propose it be included! I think of TCoD as being relatively *ism-free so it throws me off seeing (for example) "crazy" or "insane" thrown around on a forum that's quite socially conscious!


----------



## Autumn

I'm not so sure about excluding crazy and insane, but I definitely want retarded to be included in the rule.


----------



## Datura

Yeah, the r-word is another example, but as far as I've seen it's never really used here! (Thank god.)


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

I agree with Poly. "Crazy" and "Insane" are indeed a part of the common diction, but the r-word I find quite offensive. This is, of course, entirely subjective. Some people may go so far as to say that the whole concept of intelligence is ableist, but I wouldn't go that far.


----------



## shy ♡

I don't see how it being part of common diction is relevant? All slurs are/were part of common diction until someone(s) took a stand about it. That's basically the entire problem.


----------



## Datura

Vehement Mustelid said:


> Some people may go so far as to say that the whole concept of intelligence is ableist


That's... because it is!


----------



## Spoon

This is honestly the first time I've heard of crazy and insane as being ableist. This could be me being particularly dense, however, and I'm perfectly happy to correct that. 

Perhaps a list of -ist words to avoid would be helpful? Some offensive words are so ingrained into people's vocabularies that they don't really notice. There's some legitimate differences in different types of English, too; for example, 



Spoiler: ableist language, maybe?



spastic


 isn't nearly offensive in American English when compared to British English.


----------



## ultraviolet

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> I'm not so sure about excluding crazy and insane, but I definitely want retarded to be included in the rule.


i'm pretty sure it is: mods will probably ask someone to not say 'retarded' and people usually comply so we don't have to infract people for it. if we haven't notice someone say it, report it or send a PM or something, we don't mind.

anyway yep okay sounds good! I know I say things like 'that's crazy!' without actually thinking about it and I'm happy to change that if it makes someone feel better.


----------



## Byrus

Datura said:


> That's... because it is!


...Why?


----------



## Autumn

Datura said:


> That's... because it is!


Sadly the world doesn't treat people of lesser intelligence or whatnot as equals to "normal" people :/ (and I mean sometimes it's necessary, you can't ask people with lesser intelligence or understanding to do things that are beyond their reach but they might be things that "normal" people can do, fact of the matter is that people with lesser intelligence or mental disorders or whatnot are a minority, but this is one minority that _can't_ necessarily be integrated.) But that doesn't mean the words to describe them should be used in the English lexicon - let's see, what are single words to say something is a dumb idea, makes no sense, etc.? Stupid, dumb, lame, retarded, crazy, insane, idiotic, moronic... and where do these words have their origins? I can't think of a single word in popular use to express the things that these words do that *doesn't* have its origin in actual terms used to refer to certain minorities. :/


----------



## Datura

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> But that doesn't mean the words to describe them should be used in the English lexicon - let's see, what are single words to say something is a dumb idea, makes no sense, etc.? Stupid, dumb, lame, retarded, crazy, insane, idiotic, moronic... and where do these words have their origins? I can't think of a single word in popular use to express the things that these words do that *doesn't* have its origin in actual terms used to refer to certain minorities. :/


You have lots to pick from! Here's a good list.


----------



## surskitty

Vehement Mustelid said:


> Some people may go so far as to say that the whole concept of intelligence is ableist, but I wouldn't go that far.


The thing with the concept of intelligence is that just because some people are faster at learning certain things than other people doesn't mean that people slower at learning that thing _can't_.  It might require a lot more investment of time and effort (and often people explaining it differently, since not all teaching styles work for everyone), but how easily someone learns a skill isn't really that relevant in most contexts.  Usually it only matters that you have the skill, or the inclination to acquire it.

There's a certain tendency for people to think that just because it might take them longer to learn (how to do) certain things than it takes other people, it's not worthwhile.  Intelligence isn't that useful of a concept the majority of the time.


I'm pretty sure if you say anything incredibly ableist, you'll be called out, yes.


----------



## Autumn

I like absurd and ridiculous! New replacement terms for use in everyday conversation. (I'd forgotten about those but they best fit my style.)
(Even doubly important 'cause I'm a music therapy major!)


----------



## Butterfree

I don't think a full-on ban on using words like "stupid" or "crazy" is very productive. Using them as insults referring to people, of course, is Not Okay, but they're so commonplace in everyday language expressing real, useful sentiments that have nothing to do with disability that I can't possibly see something like "Man, that was a stupid mistake I just made" or "This crazy thing happened to me yesterday" being meaningfully demeaning or hurtful to anyone who is intellectually disabled or mentally ill, the way similar uses of the word "retarded" are. The latter actually invokes disability to derive a derisive meaning; the former don't really.

I say this with the reservation that English isn't my native language and my sense of the connotations could just be off here, and I can't speak for the disabled; if somebody here actually feels demeaned by such nonpersonal usage, I stand corrected.


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

Datura said:


> You have lots to pick from! Here's a good list.


I'd... generally be more offended by some of these slurs? :/

Words like "dumb" and "stupid" are rather watered down insults that don't have as strong a negative connotation in reality. You can't just look at the literal denotative meanings.

Ideally you shouldn't have to use any of these insults, but if you did, comparing someone to a certain part of anatomy isn't really any more acceptable than calling them foolish.


----------



## surskitty

also just noting the only one I'm really bothered with is the r word.  :|b


----------



## ultraviolet

the only one I don't get is 'lame' because I imagine it referring to like, a horse that has a lame foot and I've never heard 'lame' used that way in reference to an actual person and I don't get how it's offensive I guess! because I always took 'lame' to mean 'uncool' but I'm okay with not saying it.


----------



## Datura

surskitty said:


> also just noting the only one I'm really bothered with is the r word.  :|b


Honestly, what's the difference between describing something as "retarded" versus describing that same thing as "crazy"? The connotation might be different because the c-word _is_ so much more diluted, but they both refer to the same thing!

(edit: By "the same thing" I mean mental disabilities!)

edit2: I have an article! Was looking for it for a while. http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/05/17/guest-post-from-rmj-ableist-word-profile-crazy/


----------



## Butterfree

But the dilution makes a pretty substantial difference! "Retarded" only gets to its colloquial meaning via invoking the image of someone who is mentally disabled, because it has a very immediate history of being used primarily to refer to the mentally disabled - similar to how the insult "gay" only gets to its colloquial meaning through invoking the idea of homosexuality.

A word like "crazy" has a colloquial meaning that at least by now is so deep-rooted that it generally doesn't go "through" the idea of mental illness (when it's not being used as an insult in reference to people, at least). If you're saying you had a crazy day, nobody pictures anything to do with mental illness; they just picture a strange, hectic, unusual day. If you say you had a crazy idea, they expect something wacky and over-the-top. Those connotations may have gotten attached to the word "crazy" through being associated with the mentally ill, but there's no implication when you read the sentence today that the idea is being compared to the mentally ill. I can't really imagine an actual mentally ill person hearing that and feeling genuinely marginalized by it (but again, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected).


----------



## surskitty

You may notice that I've mostly switched to absurd!  But I think rather a lot of people with mental illnesses or disabilities don't really give a shit, and in a lot of contexts I'd consider it tacky rather than go 'nerd, stop that'.  Bigger fish in the sea, etc, etc.  Someone else wants to bother calling them out, fine, whatever, try not to be a massive asshole about it, but I personally am not that likely to be the first one in an area to do so unless the association between mental issues and being wrong is obvious.

There's a difference between calling something absurd crazy and calling someone who holds views you find repugnant crazy, and while I personally try not to do either, the former usage is a lot less tacky.


----------



## Ether's Bane

Butterfree said:


> I don't think a full-on ban on using words like "stupid" or "crazy" is very productive. Using them as insults referring to people, of course, is Not Okay, but they're so commonplace in everyday language expressing real, useful sentiments that have nothing to do with disability that I can't possibly see something like "Man, that was a stupid mistake I just made" or "This crazy thing happened to me yesterday" being meaningfully demeaning or hurtful to anyone who is intellectually disabled or mentally ill, the way similar uses of the word "retarded" are. The latter actually invokes disability to derive a derisive meaning; the former don't really.
> 
> I say this with the reservation that English isn't my native language and my sense of the connotations could just be off here, and I can't speak for the disabled; if somebody here actually feels demeaned by such nonpersonal usage, I stand corrected.





Vehement Mustelid said:


> I'd... generally be more offended by some of these slurs? :/
> 
> Words like "dumb" and "stupid" are rather watered down insults that don't have as strong a negative connotation in reality. You can't just look at the literal denotative meanings.
> 
> Ideally you shouldn't have to use any of these insults, but if you did, comparing someone to a certain part of anatomy isn't really any more acceptable than calling them foolish.





surskitty said:


> also just noting the only one I'm really bothered with is the r word.  :|b





Butterfree said:


> But the dilution makes a pretty substantial difference! "Retarded" only gets to its colloquial meaning via invoking the image of someone who is mentally disabled, because it has a very immediate history of being used primarily to refer to the mentally disabled - similar to how the insult "gay" only gets to its colloquial meaning through invoking the idea of homosexuality.
> 
> A word like "crazy" has a colloquial meaning that at least by now is so deep-rooted that it generally doesn't go "through" the idea of mental illness (when it's not being used as an insult in reference to people, at least). If you're saying you had a crazy day, nobody pictures anything to do with mental illness; they just picture a strange, hectic, unusual day. If you say you had a crazy idea, they expect something wacky and over-the-top. Those connotations may have gotten attached to the word "crazy" through being associated with the mentally ill, but there's no implication when you read the sentence today that the idea is being compared to the mentally ill. I can't really imagine an actual mentally ill person hearing that and feeling genuinely marginalized by it (but again, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected).


Agreed wholeheartedly with all of these.

I don't really think that "crazy" or "insane" or anything like that ought to be banned. However, terms such as 



Spoiler: offensive language here



"retarded"


 or "spaz" ought to be banned. Really, it comes down to societal context.


----------



## Phantom

I think it's all in the context of how these words are used, as Butterfree explained very well. Obviously, not all of them have immediately negative connotations. Some do, and some may be used to be negative, but unless it's obviously directed to meant to be taken as an insult of some sort it doesn't deserved to be _banned_. That's a bit over dramatic.

Words like "insane" or "crazy" mean very different things now they they did say, fifty years ago. The language evolves, and we should evolve with it rather than the alternative. Remember when "gay" meant that something or someone was happy?

I think it's not a good idea and is just looking to start arguments.


----------



## Minish

These words just feel really creepy to me. That's so wild it's something a _mentally ill_ person would do/say!!! haha!!!! Honestly yeah it's just tacky and weird rather than all-out offensive. If you're okay with a :| reaction from a bunch of us, then sure, use whatever words you like and come off kinda gross.



Phantom said:


> Words like "insane" or "crazy" mean very different things now they they did say, fifty years ago. The language evolves, and we should evolve with it rather than the alternative. Remember when "gay" meant that something or someone was happy?


Y...eah, they've become colloquial. That's not intrinsically good? Why don't you use the "remember when 'gay' meant just homosexual" argument in favour of negative colloquial 'that's so gay!' use, then? If you're going to use the ~go with the times~ argument you have to go all out, you know! Yeah, language evolution happens, and sometimes it hurts other people!



Butterfree said:


> I can't really imagine an actual mentally ill person hearing that and feeling genuinely marginalized by it (but again, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected).


Well, you only have to look. The link Datura provided is all about how lots of mentally ill people have issues with it.


----------



## Butterfree

Minish said:
			
		

> That's so wild it's something a mentally ill person would do/say!!! haha!!!!


My point was sort of that's not at all how the thought process of someone who says or reads "I had a crazy day" goes. Yes, language can affect how people think without actual malicious intent being behind it, but when people get into "It doesn't matter whether that association actually even comes up at all because this is how it originated, period", it's relying on this weird magical thinking where the origins of a word can somehow affect how a person thinks about groups of people even when said groups of people never even entered into their minds on any level as they read and processed the word. (Many people don't even know the word "lame" refers to a disability at all, for instance; how could it possibly affect how they view or think of people with any disability?) A crazy day isn't weird or over-the-top by association with mentally ill people; it's just a weird and over-the-top day. That's the crucial difference between it and something like 'gay' as an insult, which gets all its insulting connotations from the idea that gayness is to be mocked and derided and is so strongly associated with homosexuality that anyone who hears the word will think of it.



			
				Minish said:
			
		

> Well, you only have to look. The link Datura provided is all about how lots of mentally ill people have issues with it.


I did look at it, and not really. It's making an intellectual argument for why the connotations of the word "crazy" are problematic to associate with mental illness, but my argument is that the association doesn't quite meaningfully happen in (at least some) nonpersonal use of it. I read through a lot of the comments; some of them talked about having been targeted with it as a slur, or talking about the hurtfulness of actually calling people crazy, and then a lot talk generally about trying to purge it from their vocabulary (and about how even though they themselves have a mental illness they still used it that way and didn't even realize it was ableist). I truly have never actually seen a mentally ill person say, "When I see the word 'crazy', even in completely nonpersonal contexts, I feel marginalized." I just see a lot of people talking about how it refers to mental illness and therefore it's ableist and therefore it's bad, without properly asking the question of what harm it does if any when it's not actually being used to invoke the idea of mental illness as a bad thing or even directed at people. If it (the idea that even that is bad) does really originate in actual people being actually hurt and marginalized, I'll be the first to say we should not use it, but so far I feel uncomfortably like it's just some kind of a big social justice positive feedback loop.


----------



## Minish

Butterfree said:


> My point was sort of that's not at all how the thought process of someone who says or reads "I had a crazy day" goes. Yes, language can affect how people think without actual malicious intent being behind it, but when people get into "It doesn't matter whether that association actually even comes up at all because this is how it originated, period", it's relying on this weird magical thinking where the origins of a word can somehow affect how a person thinks about groups of people even when said groups of people never even entered into their minds on any level as they read and processed the word. (Many people don't even know the word "lame" refers to a disability at all, for instance; how could it possibly
> affect how they view or think of people with any disability?)


That makes sense! And it's why I usually don't bother with pointing out that it's questionable to people, because it's not really a particularly big issue and I just can't be bothered.

But the biggest issue is about the people who hear 'crazy', right? Rather than how people intend it. As discussed in the link - people who are mentally ill are dismissed for 'just being crazy', so hearing that 'crazy' used in other negative contexts can be really shitty for them. So that's why I try to not use it at all, just in case! I _do_ also feel that if you use it in the kind of 'wow that politician did that thing he's just crazy' way, you're getting into the habit of seeing 'being crazy' as a reason for being a complete douchecanoe. And that just has creepy implications!

A 'crazy day' type thing, yeah, that's a lot less dangerous. But I still don't personally want to say it, because there _are_ people who feel marginalised when you do that! So why take the risk?

I'm not sure if it's completely different to 'gay'. My sister uses the phrase sporadically and I've observed it and concluded that she literally just doesn't really have that association. It's not what she thinks of when she uses it, and her queer sibling, who she's fine with, certainly doesn't come to mind. She doesn't think of gayness, she thinks of the other times she's used the phrase, which is in connection to boring or ridiculous or sentimental or whatever stuff.

They both have connotations to a marginalised group, and they've both become pretty divorced from direct association. You're probably like me and don't hear it much, but 'gay' really is sometimes used with just no conscious association. It's weird.



> I truly have never actually seen a mentally ill person say, "When I see the word 'crazy', even in completely nonpersonal contexts, I feel marginalized." I just see a lot of people talking about how it refers to mental illness and therefore it's ableist and therefore it's bad, without properly asking the question of what harm it does if any when it's not actually being used to invoke the idea of mental illness as a bad thing or even directed at people. If it does really originate in actual people being actually hurt and marginalized, I'll be the first to say we should not use it, but so far I feel uncomfortably like it's just some kind of a big social justice positive feedback loop.


But... well, I don't really know what else you want! These are people saying that the phrase makes them feel bad, that they don't want to use it themselves or hear it said, and that in general we should phase it out of our vocabulary. _Even if_ you don't think it's the perfect argument, using it hurts and upsets these mentally ill people! Why do you need more reasons, really?

I thought there was a decent amount of discussion there about how using it even when not directed at people/in a negative way is still bad. You're associating something absurd with people who are deemed clinically crazy. You're doing it with this word that is used to dismiss them. It's not a direct association but for some people, the word 'crazy' _has been used to dismiss and marginalise them_, so keeping up the 'crazy = something wacky and/or ridiculous' association is a questionable thing.


(EDIT: I just wanted to add, by in large I think this kind of discussion is good, that we're both/all being civil and thoughtful, and that it's good for the forum in general to go over this kind of thing. Just in light of cries of 'oh just tcodf being tcodf again and getting worked up over nothing!!' I don't think it's nothing, but I also don't think anyone's getting overly worked up. I wouldn't call this _fun_, but it's interesting and useful and I want to hear other people's points of view.)


----------



## yiran

ableism |ˈābəˌlizəm|(also ablism )
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnāSHən|
noun
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex: victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.

So no, the concept of intelligence isn't ableist. The concept of intelligence is to measure how well a person would potentially do something, not to provoke unjust treatment of people of lesser intelligence. That may be a side affect, but if that counts then you could say toilets are sexist. It is true that disabled people have are physically unable to do less things, such as a paralysed child simply will not be able to participate in PE class. That's not ableism, that's just how things work, because they're not all going to play a wheelchair basketball game for one person.

As for the other stuff, I don't really care about insults. If someone calls me retarded I'm unaffected. I don't call others retarded, though, so I don't think I'll have a problem here.


----------



## Adriane

Vehement Mustelid said:


> I'd... generally be more offended by some of these slurs? :/


Unless you're disabled and we're not aware of it, this isn't about you. Of course they're still intrinsically _rude_. That's not the point, though. Avoiding ableist (or racist, sexist, etc.) language isn't about _being nice_, it's about being _not a jerk who compromises less-privileged people_.


----------



## surskitty

yiran said:


> ableism |ˈābəˌlizəm|(also ablism )
> noun
> discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.
> 
> discrimination |disˌkriməˈnāSHən|
> noun
> 1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex: victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.
> 
> So no, the concept of intelligence isn't ableist. The concept of intelligence is to measure how well a person would potentially do something, not to provoke unjust treatment of people of lesser intelligence. That may be a side affect, but if that counts then you could say toilets are sexist. It is true that disabled people have are physically unable to do less things, such as a paralysed child simply will not be able to participate in PE class. That's not ableism, that's just how things work, because they're not all going to play a wheelchair basketball game for one person.
> 
> As for the other stuff, I don't really care about insults. If someone calls me retarded I'm unaffected. I don't call others retarded, though, so I don't think I'll have a problem here.


As a general rule, if you pull up dictionary definitions in the middle of a discussion, you have made a wrong turn.  I'm not sure if there are any exceptions to that rule.

Uh, if the class setup doesn't let the person using a wheelchair participate in anything, then that means the class setup is ableist, yes.  Your claim there makes about as much sense as saying that 'inaccessible buildings aren't ableist because they're not going to install a ramp just for one person.'  I hope you can see the issue here.  

I'm not saying they all have to play wheelchair basketball (though that would probably be an interesting learning experience for a lot of the class, and knowing how to maneuver a wheelchair effectively can be useful for a lot of people currently without physical disabilities: consider if you break your leg), but if your class setup is leaving people out, you are probably doing something wrong.  


While this isn't the same topic, I'm now thinking of mainstreaming d/Deaf kids into hearing schools and how they frequently end up socially isolated.  https://ritdml.rit.edu/handle/1850/1063 Here's an article!


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

Chalumeau said:


> Avoiding ableist (or racist, sexist, etc.) language isn't about _being nice_, it's about being _not a jerk who compromises less-privileged people_.


Insulting an entire group of people rather than the actions of the person(s) in question is entirely tasteless, yes. But the point is that the association isn't always made. Calling someone out just for using a particular word that has developed a meaning _entirely separate_ from its original use isn't exactly productive.


----------



## yiran

No, it is not the wrong turn, because everyone here seems to treat everything as discrimination when it should be only applied when it is unjust.

Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.

It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.

People are overly sensitive here. I am not saying this because I am insensitive, but most people in our school wouldn't make a fuss about things like mixing up "gender" and "sex" because that seems also like pulling out dictionary definitions to me. (Also this is coming from a school environment which is very tolerant of homosexuality, so it's not that we're conservative that we are "ableist" either.)


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:


> Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.


um, no? most schools _do _make an effort to make things easier for the disabled (because it's usually required under... anti-discrimination & accessibility laws). In fact, my primary school got ramps and stuff installed just because of _one_ person who was born with a birth defect and had to use a wheelchair because he essentially didn't have legs. 



> It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.


no it is not, because you have a *choice *to participate in certain mafia games that don't pander to you! People kind of don't have a choice to be disabled, and people are generally required by law to go to school! most of the time people can't just go to a different school because it might be the only one close, it might be the only affordable school in the area, travel or commuting to a different school might be too expensive or difficult, etc. Similarly, playing mafia games on the internet isn't as quite an integral part of your life as being able to go to school!

Besides, your use of the dictionary doesn't really make much sense anyway; ableism extends to anyone who is disabled, including people who might be mentally disabled. dictionary.com actually gives it to mean 'discrimination against disabled people', so it kind of goes to show that pulling out a dictionary is kind of a useless point to bring up?

like it just seems that you're taking this personally when really this doesn't have much to do with you or anyone in particular. or am I wrong?


----------



## yiran

My point on the dictionary is the definition of "discrimination". Unjust treatment is discrimination, not what happens in the norm. Here's another example: stairs are far more helpful for able-bodied people than the physically disabled but they are not "ableist".

Yes, but principally they are the same; the "host" using more effort in order to help some of the "participants" that are not as privileged as the majority. Choice is not all that relevant in questioning the morals of the "host".

If I look like I am taking this personally it is because I don't like people being oversensitive, and act like they have a right to criticise others for acting what is in the norm for it.


----------



## shy ♡

yiran said:


> No, it is not the wrong turn, because everyone here seems to treat everything as discrimination when it should be only applied when it is unjust.
> 
> Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.
> 
> It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.
> 
> People are overly sensitive here. I am not saying this because I am insensitive, but most people in our school wouldn't make a fuss about things like mixing up "gender" and "sex" because that seems also like pulling out dictionary definitions to me. (Also this is coming from a school environment which is very tolerant of homosexuality, so it's not that we're conservative that we are "ableist" either.)


No. 

Who writes dictionary definitions? Is it people with disabilities? No. Do the definitions define word usage, or does word usage define the dictionary definition? The latter. So fuck the dictionary, thanks. :)

Here is a more accurate definition. 

It feels to me like _you _are being overly sensitive about how much effort you need to put into things. Of course you can say and act however you want, but we will consider you a douche for doing so. 

Oh, and _yes_, all schools are ableist. All people are ableist. _We live in a fucking ableist society_. Just like all schools are racist, sexist, etc. I dropped out of school in _fourth grade_ because it caters to neurotypical, not-depressed people who can do maths and don't have anxiety disorders. Seriously, you don't think schools are ableist? :|


----------



## surskitty

yiran said:


> No, it is not the wrong turn, because everyone here seems to treat everything as discrimination when it should be only applied when it is unjust.
> 
> Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.
> 
> It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.
> 
> People are overly sensitive here. I am not saying this because I am insensitive, but most people in our school wouldn't make a fuss about things like mixing up "gender" and "sex" because that seems also like pulling out dictionary definitions to me. (Also this is coming from a school environment which is very tolerant of homosexuality, so it's not that we're conservative that we are "ableist" either.)


No, sorry, regardless of your stance, you automatically look 90% less credible when you pull out dictionary definitions.  There are basically no scenarios in which that is a good direction to go in.

Last I checked, most schools and most people are ableist.  Shit, really?  It's like this society as a whole has major issues acknowledging that people with physical and/or mental disabilities are people.

1. Bit of a difference when you can pick mafia games.  2. ... Don't most mafia games give you at least 24 hours to respond?  A lot of them seem kind of time zone agnostic.  3.  Seriously, pick a mafia game you can reply to, or start your own.  A little harder to start your own school.





yiran said:


> My point on the dictionary is the definition of "discrimination". Unjust treatment is discrimination, not what happens in the norm. Here's another example: stairs are far more helpful for able-bodied people than the physically disabled but they are not "ableist".
> 
> Yes, but principally they are the same; the "host" using more effort in order to help some of the "participants" that are not as privileged as the majority. Choice is not all that relevant in questioning the morals of the "host".
> 
> If I look like I am taking this personally it is because I don't like people being oversensitive, and act like they have a right to criticise others for acting what is in the norm for it.


Having only stairs sure is, though!  Look, no one's saying STAIRS CAN'T EXIST.  If you're running a public place, though, then yes, you damn well should have a ramp or an elevator, which should be available for people who need it (which means encouraging people to take the stairs and not policing everyone who doesn't, because you have no way of knowing who has difficulties with stairs) and have made sure that you didn't miss a single step somewhere that's automatic _for you_ to walk over.  Last I checked the ADA doesn't say you only need to add accommodations if you're intentionally being unjust.  Last I checked the main way to get out of following the ADA after someone sues you (this shit doesn't get enforced proactively) is to prove it'd cause significant financial hardship, and the thing is, if you keep accessibility in mind ahead of time, _it probably won't._  It's a lot easier to plan space for ramps and elevators and 32" wide doorways than to remodel after someone brings up that it's an issue.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the 'host' comment.  If you're running a public space, you have an obligation to either make it so the public can access it or make it clear who can't.  If you're doing something like excluding someone who uses a wheelchair from PE because it's too hard for you to select activities they can participate in, or you aren't making sure the d/Deaf kids at your hearing school get a comprehensive education and that includes the stuff that doesn't directly include the teachers, you are doing a shitty job running a public space.  And since those involve schools, you would be fucking up someone's right to an education because doing the Right Thing is, what, too hard?

Expecting people to be treated like people who deserve respect isn't 'being oversensitive'.


----------



## Phantom

I'm sensing mountains being made out of mole hills.

If someone is offended by something someone says, ok then they ahve a right to notify staff. Otherwise, removing all language that in the history of the world has potential to be insulting is being overdramatic.

If I started reporting every post I see that said something was crazy or stupid, I'd get a warning for using the report function incorrectly. Would I not?


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:


> Yes, but principally they are the same; the "host" using more effort in order to help some of the "participants" that are not as privileged as the majority. Choice is not all that relevant in questioning the morals of the "host".


Yes it is! Because you can just pick a mafia game that _does _suit you! People who are disabled usually can't just pick another school or mode of transport or travel route or shopping centre. Comparing your situation with mafia to how the disabled have to deal with everything all the time on a daily basis is ludicrous and I hope later you realise how hyperbolic you're being.

Based on what you're saying, making a mafia host stay up later because they've extended the vote time is _also _discriminatory. You're not making any sense. Discrimination isn't just 'things are a bit unfair for me'. It's when people are actually, you know, oppressed. Nobody is oppressing you in mafia!! Nobody is intentionally making your life harder or saying things that upset you because they don't give a fuck! 



			
				yiran said:
			
		

> If I look like I am taking this personally it is because I don't like people being oversensitive, and act like they have a right to criticise others for acting what is in the norm for it.


What is actually gained by going 'you're being too oversensitive'? Are you okay with the fact that something you might say could have deep, harsh, emotional responses in someone even though you don't mean it? Would you rather make tiny adjustments to your vocabulary so you don't unintentionally hurt a bunch of people on this forum or just go 'eh it's YOUR FAULT you have this problem so I don't care' and do it anyway??

'it's the norm' isn't really an acceptable excuse to make other people upset because you just don't feel like changing. Homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. etc. etc. used to be and mostly still are the norm in a lot of places! It's not as though everyone here is criticising you personally (well at least they weren't before you showed up), they're just asking people generally if they wouldn't use certain words because it makes them feel really really bad. And you're criticising _them _for that. So I don't get why you're acting like you have it so hard??


----------



## yiran

Humans are self-serving, which is where the supposed discrimination comes from. However, I believe that acting normally should not be classified under discrimination.

We're at an impasse, because I do in fact believe that people are intentionally making my life harder by refusing to make adjustments. Oh and the reason I really don't like this is because people here seem to act under the impression that they are more open that the general population (correct me if I'm wrong), while they're not really accepting of my stance.

(I still don't get what is wrong with dictionaries, by the way.)


----------



## shy ♡

I don't make any pretenses of being accepting towards bigotry.


----------



## Tarvos

Phantom said:


> I'm sensing mountains being made out of mole hills.
> 
> If someone is offended by something someone says, ok then they ahve a right to notify staff. Otherwise, removing all language that in the history of the world has potential to be =insulting is being overdramatic.
> 
> If I started reporting every post I see that said something was crazy or stupid, I'd get a warning for using the report function incorrectly. Would I not?


I sense this forum might be an exception to that rule, Phantom


----------



## Phantom

Tarvos said:


> I sense this forum might be an exception to that rule, Phantom


Not really! 

If I have a supposed legit claim to report someone because they said that their 'VHS player was stupid' and that as a intellectually disabled individual I felt offended, or if they said that  they say 'homework is dumb' and I am actually incapable of speaking, what would their response be? What if I were to report every time someone used a word that could be potentially offensive?

There are mods here that give infractions/warnings for misuse of the report button. 

I saw a post that was calling someone a 'cunt' outright (and not even in the CC). Shouldn't that be removed? Surely there are some here who feel insulted by it? That find the use of the word demeaning?

Do you see how it doesn't work?


----------



## shy ♡

Look, as I said before, you are entitled to do whatever you want. You still have to suffer the consequences of those actions. 

If you are reporting posts that you are _legitimately_ offended by (as opposed to simply trolling the report button), I highly doubt that you would get warnings for it.


----------



## Minish

Phantom, what? Most of the mods here, not to mention Butterfree, have been arguing _against_ enforced vocabulary checks. We tend to be good at calling someone out if they're suddenly using the r-word, but mostly we pick our battles. Sometimes if someone personally has a problem, they go and talk to them directly, and ask them to consider not doing it future (e.g. I know some leave VMs for people who use binarist language, rather than either reporting or infracting, because it's more a matter of not being unpleasant rather than breaking rules).

Considering there are people who report very regularly about very small things, clearly we don't really care if someone does that.


----------



## Phantom

pathos said:


> Look, as I said before, you are entitled to do whatever you want. You still have to suffer the consequences of those actions.
> 
> If you are reporting posts that you are _legitimately_ offended by (as opposed to simply trolling the report button), I highly doubt that you would get warnings for it.


Obvious trolling is obvious. 

But if someone actually has a claim... say hold on... just remembered that. 

No I'm not saying this is how I specifically got this, but there are those who do infract for it.

EDIT: Holy Ninja Batman. Was I yelling at mods? I was saying that it was enforced somehow, the report function. Obviously. 

But thank you, for sharing that bit of what is private information with the world. Quite nice of you to do that, especially since it might have negative effects on me. Thank you oh so much. I wasn't calling out anyone, or anything. Can someone take that down please and can the mods please check themselves before posting private information like that publicly? Seriously, that's a bit out of line.

Not only that. It's plain and outright rude, especially unprovoked.  Things like this is not what I have come to expect from a place like this.


----------



## Autumn

yiran said:


> We're at an impasse, because I do in fact believe that people are intentionally making my life harder by refusing to make adjustments. Oh and the reason I really don't like this is because people here seem to act under the impression that they are more open that the general population (correct me if I'm wrong), while they're not really accepting of my stance.


oh my god yiran _shut up_ about that goddamn mafia game already the world does _not revolve around you_ just accept the fact that you had ample time to post and just because you didn't get to post ~right before the end of the day phase~ is *NOT FUCKING DISCRIMINATORY* because there's no way around it. seriously this is just petty and ridiculous and makes you look like a bit of an ass.


----------



## yiran

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> oh my god yiran _shut up_ about that goddamn mafia game already the world does _not revolve around you_ just accept the fact that you had ample time to post and just because you didn't get to post ~right before the end of the day phase~ is *NOT FUCKING DISCRIMINATORY* because there's no way around it. seriously this is just petty and ridiculous and makes you look like a bit of an ass.


I didn't have ample time to post after major things happened (or I might have, it's been a while so I've forgot a lot of stuff). That was the point. (Oh and if bad things happen to me because of my time zone, well, I don't like that. :( )

Well, I admit to being a petty person (if I've ever lent you money you would know), but I don't think I am an ass from my behaviour, because I still feel justified. Feel free to think so if you want to.


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

Just wondering... if people here are concerned with avoiding ableist slurs, why do we still have a forum called "Insanity"?

Wouldn't that be potentially offensive?


----------



## Autumn

yiran said:


> I didn't have ample time to post after major things happened (or I might have, it's been a while so I've forgot a lot of stuff). That was the point. (Oh and if bad things happen to me because of my time zone, well, I don't like that. :( )


i looked back over your complaints and it was basically "oh i wanted to say something at the very end of the day phase but that was three am so :(" and the point is that just because you wanted to make a statement at the end of the day phase does not make the rules any more discriminatory and unfair. time-zone-ism is not a thing because _all deadlines on international forums are going to inconvenience someone, somehow._ and it's not like you didn't have ample opportunity to post, but oh, apparently the world revolves around you and you should be given the opportunity to post right before the end of the day phase because _logik._

your arguments don't apply to ableism, they're just you finding an excuse to whine about discrimination that isn't actually discrimination.



Vehement Mustelid said:


> Just wondering... if people here are concerned with avoiding ableist slurs, why do we still have a forum called "Insanity"?
> 
> Wouldn't that be potentially offensive?


Butterfree and some other mods aren't wanting to enforce vocabulary policing, and if Butterfree's comments here are any indication she doesn't necessarily see the problem when the words aren't being used in an offensive manner.


----------



## yiran

Actually, discussion always dies down after a while, when there's a majority and stuff, so that everyone has a chance to speak after the voting process and whatnot. And plus, it's mafia, what people say may easily turn tides of games.

It's true that it's a tiny thing compared to installing ramps for schools, but I still think that there is a solution and it didn't happen because people couldn't be bothered.

But really, if you think that's a bad example, then fine, because that just came off as a sub-argument. Back to my main point: 

Intelligence isn't ableist. If you think it is ableist then you think everyone who thinks the concept of intelligence is real ableist. And then your range of "people you consider ableist" would be too large for anyone you consider ableist to care, anyway.


----------



## Autumn

i'm done arguing the mafia point because you're never going to understand how fucking egotistical your statements are

but this:



> Intelligence isn't ableist.


care to explain why you think so?


----------



## Hiikaru

I've seen people argue that they think "dumb" and "lame" are different because the former has pretty entirely fallen out of use except for the new definition and you now can say "mute", while "lame" is still the only way you can talk about someone with a bad leg! Weirdly there are apparently a bunch of people who were completely unaware that "lame" had anything to do with legs ever, but I definitely remember seeing it quite a bit as a kid! I'm pretty sure it was in a bunch of realistic fiction horse books, for instance (like I think there's a scene in The Black Stallion or Black Beauty or something where the titular horse is in danger of having a permanently lame leg). I remember it being used in the bible, too, and I knew what it meant the first time it came up in church even though I was pretty little. That is, I get that some people didn't know! But others _do_ and then there'd be the possibility that they're affected by negative uses!

But, even if it's just an old definition, that doesn't mean it can never affect anyone. Like, at least a few old books I read as a kid referred to mute people as "dumb". I knew that it also meant mute, but I still thought the author was trying to tell me that people who couldn't speak were inherently not as smart as other people! (Otherwise, I didn't get why they'd use a double-meaning word instead of picking something else.) If "lame" as "uncool" had been so much of a thing around me, I could've taken the same kind of message away from stories using that word! I really don't think it's unrealistic that that could happen to other people! Even if you've never heard of the other definition, it seems like there's usually plenty of context to go around with it. Like in the horse books the horse's leg got hurt and the horse couldn't enter races or whatever, and _then_ in context the horse's owner was concerned about the leg being lame, and talked about it healing from being lame so the horse could race again.

(hide tag just in case someone doesn't want to suddenly run into examples even in a context of "this thing people do is bad"!)



Spoiler: examples about "crazy" being used harmfully and thoughts about them



I don't think "crazy" is really dead in its definition as mental illness, anyway! When someone says a _person_ is "crazy", they're still inherently saying "something is wrong in this person's head and this is the only reason that they're [doing something bad/disagreeing with me/hurting me]" or more clearly "they could only be doing this if they have a _mental illness_." I've even seen "mental illness" and "crazy" used in that kind of context interchangeably more than once; people say stuff like "uh, I think e's mentally ill." talking about people like politicians that they strongly disagree with. That's not okay! There's nothing okay about saying something that really clearly carries the meaning "people with mental illnesses are bad gross people who no one would want to be around".

That definition is still alive and hurting people all the time! People learn that it's okay to think if someone is doing something that they don't understand, the someone is just "crazy"; this translates really easily to being mean to people with mental disorders! Those people hear all the time that others think they're "crazy" and bad and dangerous and abnormal, and people without mental disorders get the understanding that that _is_ the case. If they're around someone experiencing depression (for instance) and the depressed person does something that doesn't make immediate sense to the other person, they're dismissed as being "crazy". Dismissing people who are experiencing depression like that is really bad! If it's expressed at the depressed person, they can absorb that kind of reasoning, too, and feel worse at themselves and feel like they're "going crazy" because that's what they're told is happening and they get less likely to seek treatment! People around them think they're "going crazy" too and get less likely to help them seek treatment! Places where people can get treatment are a joke, somewhere for "crazy" people to go. Only "crazy" people need to see a therapist. Only "crazy" people need medicine. That's not okay! But people really think those things! This sort of use of the word "crazy" encourages that kind of thought!


I don't know about calling non-people things (or non-personified things) "crazy" being quite the same level of harmfulness, but I don't think "but people don't associated it with mental disorders at all" is necessarily quite right (even if it maybe appears true at first!). People call a day "crazy" in the same breath that they call a person "crazy"; it's not totally outlandish to guess that they might build a bridge between the two, even if sub-consciously!

I wish I knew way more about it, but it really doesn't seem right to consider it wholly unproblematic!

I'm also really curious about thoughts on uses of "crazy" as an actually-positive thing, like as a way of saying "wow, this is incredible and amazing and cool"! I was watching a video series about the universe and the narrator kept going on about how "crazy" the universe is in the sense that it's really amazing! Is using it as a good thing suddenly okay, or is it still bad because that kind of definition can really only come from having it mean things like "ridiculous" or "outlandish", first? Does it still give people the wrong idea and still remind them of the negative use?



Phantom said:


> I think it's all in the context of how these words are used, as Butterfree explained very well. Obviously, not all of them have immediately negative connotations. Some do, and some may be used to be negative, but unless it's obviously directed to meant to be taken as an insult of some sort it doesn't deserved to be _banned_. That's a bit over dramatic.
> 
> Words like "insane" or "crazy" mean very different things now they they did say, fifty years ago. The language evolves, and we should evolve with it rather than the alternative. Remember when "gay" meant that something or someone was happy?
> 
> I think it's not a good idea and is just looking to start arguments.


I don't agree either that something unintentially mean is what you should ban over! But! That's not what's happening. Messaging someone and telling them "hey, this is making the forum less safe! I know you didn't mean it but please refrain from this in the future, thank you!" isn't banning them.

Language evolving is important to take note of, sure! A word trying to evolve isn't always _good_, though. People take words that others needed and turn them into bad mean things! If a word is evolving to get worse and meaner, then why shouldn't people try hard to stop it from happening?

It isn't looking to start an argument! Someone realized words keep getting used on this forum that might be bad, and now people are trying to figure out through talking how bad those words are! If it's figured out that they are really bad and harmful, then why isn't it okay to try and keep them away? Figuring that out is important! If it's figured out that it actually is an okay thing to say, instead, then at worst people had an interesting conversation and became newly sure of a thing and learned a lot! That's not bad.



Phantom said:


> I'm sensing mountains being made out of mole hills.
> 
> If someone is offended by something someone says, ok then they ahve a right to notify staff. Otherwise, removing all language that in the history of the world has potential to be insulting is being overdramatic.
> 
> If I started reporting every post I see that said something was crazy or stupid, I'd get a warning for using the report function incorrectly. Would I not?


Even if no one personally is hurt by a word used on a forum, it's still not good! There are lots of places made up by people who are happy to have tons of hatred spilling around in the place. That doesn't make it good that they're reinforcing that kind of behaviour with each other, and it doesn't just stay in their place. People get reinforced that harmful hateful things are okay and then go on to be like that everywhere else, too!

Even if no one _here_ is upset at "crazy" (and it's totally possible that there are and they just stay quiet), if some other people outside of the forums are really harmed by it, then surely it's a positive force if people learn that here? It's better for someone to go "oh, gosh, I didn't know it was bad I'll stop" and then not hurt anyone then for them to never know and go out in the world hurting lots of people suddenly.

Why would you get a warning? If something's bothering you on a post and you can't deal with it on your own, how is that a bad kind of report? In that case you're reporting something you _genuinely_ feel is a problem! You're trying your hardest to use the report feature as you understood that it should be used.



Phantom said:


> Not really!
> 
> If I have a supposed legit claim to report someone because they said that their 'VHS player was stupid' and that as a intellectually disabled individual I felt offended, or if they said that  they say 'homework is dumb' and I am actually incapable of speaking, what would their response be? What if I were to report every time someone used a word that could be potentially offensive?
> 
> There are mods here that give infractions/warnings for misuse of the report button.
> 
> I saw a post that was calling someone a 'cunt' outright (and not even in the CC). Shouldn't that be removed? Surely there are some here who feel insulted by it? That find the use of the word demeaning?
> 
> Do you see how it doesn't work?


If you're disabled and language like "dumb" or "stupid" is hurting you, then, yeah, that's a problem! What are you saying? That ideally you should just be quiet and deal with being really hurt? No one should just have to sit and be hurt about something!

Isn't that a pretty bad word to use with lots of misogynistic connotations! How does it not work to try getting rid of something really bad?



yiran said:


> Intelligence isn't ableist. If you think it is ableist then you think everyone who thinks the concept of intelligence is real ableist. And then your range of "people you consider ableist" would be too large for anyone you consider ableist to care, anyway.


Why do you as a presumably totally able-bodied person get to decide what's ableist and what's not? You're not the one who has to deal with the pain of ableism! If something ableist happens that would seriously hurt someone else, you wouldn't even have to notice.

Why shouldn't "people who are ableist" be a big category? People are are transphobic or binarist is a huge category! People who are sexist is a huge category! What's magic about ableism so that if you think ableist people are ableist, then your category is too big? Are you going to edit the definition of ableism whenever it gets bigger than a handful of people? Is the definition you know somehow inherently "only a handful of people do this" so that you think there can't be a big group?

People are taught that intelligence is a real thing that's a good way to measure people! They don't know about it being ableism, but that doesn't make it _not_. Unintentional ableism is still ableism! If I've never had to use a ramp in my life and so I forget to include one on a building I'm making, then yeah, I obviously didn't on purpose go "hah so there people who can't use stairs you can't get in take that!!!", but that doesn't mean the no ramp isn't a problem! And then that's surely pretty problematic that I'm an architect who doesn't consider disabled people important enough to remember ramps.



yiran said:


> So no, the concept of intelligence isn't ableist. The concept of intelligence is to measure how well a person would potentially do something, not to provoke unjust treatment of people of lesser intelligence.


I'm pretty new to the idea of the concept of intelligence being ableist, but lots of things are problems! It's a _problem_ that if someone doesn't instantly understand something that's being explained a bad way for them, that they're considered less "intelligent". Forget about a dictionary definition of ableism for a minute and think about it! Do you think it's a positive force that people not getting not-gettable-to-them stuff means they're considered worse people? Is it okay that others think they're worse people?

Also why is "discrimination in favor of able-bodied people." even an argument in the first place? What if intelligence _is_ discrimination in favour of able-bodied people?



yiran said:


> No, it is not the wrong turn, because everyone here seems to treat everything as discrimination when it should be only applied when it is unjust.


What is "unjust"? If someone's getting hurt due to a word, isn't that pretty unjust and unfair? It's not "just" or fair that someone goes onto a forum trying to talk about Pokemon or kitties and suddenly gets badly hurt.



yiran said:


> So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.


What are you even trying to get across? If I think only one person is ableist and it's you, is it suddenly truer then if I think a hundred people are ableist and just one of them is you? Maybe it's just the case that a hundred people are really ableist!



yiran said:


> People are overly sensitive here. I am not saying this because I am insensitive, but most people in our school wouldn't make a fuss about things like mixing up "gender" and "sex" because that seems also like pulling out dictionary definitions to me.


_Most people in your school wouldn't care about mixing up gender and sex because most people in your school are transphobic and binarist and cissexist._ "Most people" doing something isn't a good reason to do it! If "most people" in your school threw rocks at you, would it turn into a good and positive thing to do? ?_? When "most people" were segregated by race, was being segregated by race fine...?

It isn't about dictionary definitions! Mixing up gender and sex hurts real people lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots! Who cares what a dictionary says? A disagreement on whether frito pie is a pie or not is just a definition argument. This is something that's real and affects real people! If considering gender and sex the same thing is _actively hurting people_, it's not okay to consider them the same thing! Why should a white cis able-bodied guy writing a dictionary entry get to decide that hurting me by mixing up sex and gender is okay? Why do you agree with that person that it's okay just because they got a job writing for a dictionary?? If I get a job writing for a dictionary, will I be the authority on words, and then will you instantly change your mind??? If the dictionaries all band together to define ableism as "ableism is when you use the word 'crazy' ever even in a non-harmful way." then would you argue that "crazy" is a bad word to say? Are you only allowed to think things that are verbatim from a dictionary? Why does a dictionary not putting "crazy" in the definition of ableism mean it can't be ableist??

The point isn't whether the word "crazy" fits every single arbitrary definition of ableism you can look up in the whole world. Pulling out a dictionary in a debate is bad because it kills the actual argument, which is "is this a thing that is _hurting people_?" Even if your dictionary says some arbitrary thing, it's still the case that this stuff is either hurting people or not hurting people. The only reason to have a word "ableism" at all, like the only reason to have _any_ word at all, is so we can communicate! If communication is breaking down because your dictionary says something else, then that's just a totally useless conversation. If you'd rather argue about the nuances of dictionaries, then you don't really need to be in an argument that's totally unrelated to the nuances of dictionaries! It's just de-railing.

If you're struggling to have this conversation because of a definition, why do you even care about the word? Why not go "okay, so are you saying that using 'crazy' is doing this and that? Because that's the definition about ableism I know." Then someone can either say yes or no, and then you won't be struggling anymore! That's like a thousand times less complicated and de-rail-y than splitting hairs over what some aribtrary dictionary says.




yiran said:


> Unjust treatment is discrimination, not what happens in the norm. Here's another example: stairs are far more helpful for able-bodied people than the physically disabled but they are not "ableist".


... But, discrimination _does_ happen "in the norm". It's regular for people to be discriminated against every day! Your dictionary doesn't get to decide that that's not discrimination just because it's happening too much. If a dictionary said "diamonds: a carbony gemstone. Incredibly rare." and then suddenly someone found a whole bunch of diamonds - like, so many diamonds that diamonds became ultra-common - then would the diamonds... quit being diamonds...??? The dictionary says these are rare! But now they're not rare. So instead of diamonds they're now this mysterious object that no one knows how to talk about, surely?

(don't say "but it doesn't say that!"; I'm not asking because it _actually says that_ but because I want to know if you think a dictionary can turn diamonds into not-diamonds.)

No one is saying stairs are ableist. But, if I found a dictionary that defines ableism as "stairs existing", scanned it, and posted it to the forum, would you suddenly agree that stairs are hurting people by existing?



yiran said:


> Actually, discussion always dies down after a while, when there's a majority and stuff, so that everyone has a chance to speak after the voting process and whatnot. And plus, it's mafia, what people say may easily turn tides of games.


But you could "turn the tide" of mafia even a month later. That doesn't mean not keeping it open for a month becomes discrimination. It's a game! Part of the point is that you're supposed to think of the things to say at the pace of the game. Someone not getting to post because it went too fast is just inevitable! The only feasible solution is to keep the day phase open _forever_ so that no one ever thinks of something to say when it's too late. And then you don't get to play mafia anymore.

If someone is going camping for a week, is having day phases at all during that time discrimination against campers?? If they knew they were going camping, they could've not joined a mafia game! If they didn't know, then that's too bad that they'll miss stuff, but everyone can't just pause the game and wait forever. They still want to play! There will be more mafia games for the camper some other time!

I'm really confused about why it's even relevant! Throwing harmful words around has basically zero similarities to choosing to play games and then not having time for the games!


----------



## octobr

tbh i'd love if we stopped using 'crazy' and 'insane' because every time i see those words used in pretty much any context i remember suddenly that people like me and many of my friends are treated as inferior because of issues entirely out of our control : ) and by 'treated as inferior' i mean that as people have done that literally and as the world is oriented towards people who are neurotypical despite the fact that such an overwhelming number of people are not



Vehement Mustelid said:


> Just wondering... if people here are concerned with avoiding ableist slurs, why do we still have a forum called "Insanity"?
> 
> Wouldn't that be potentially offensive?


THIS
is actually a good point


----------



## surskitty

Verne said:


> tbh i'd love if we stopped using 'crazy' and 'insane' because every time i see those words used in pretty much any context i remember suddenly that people like me and many of my friends are treated as inferior because of issues entirely out of our control : ) and by 'treated as inferior' i mean that as people have done that literally and as the world is oriented towards people who are neurotypical despite the fact that such an overwhelming number of people are not
> 
> 
> 
> THIS
> is actually a good point


yyyyeah


----------



## Autumn

just wanna say, this has to be the single most socially conscious community I've seen anywhere in my entire life

I'm proud of you guys :D making the world a better place one step at a time!! I feel like some of you are gonna go on to be lawyers or politicians or extremely vocal protestors and Be Awesome by doing so.


----------



## Butterfree

Verne said:


> tbh i'd love if we stopped using 'crazy' and 'insane' because every time i see those words used in pretty much any context i remember suddenly that people like me and many of my friends are treated as inferior because of issues entirely out of our control : ) and by 'treated as inferior' i mean that as people have done that literally and as the world is oriented towards people who are neurotypical despite the fact that such an overwhelming number of people are not


Okay! That's all I really wanted. If it does in fact trigger people even in innocuous contexts, that's not okay.

The Insanity forum has been named that since it started in 2003, at which time I would have read the word "ableism" as "a-BLEH-ism" and associated it with the exclamation "bleh". By all means let's change the name to something better.

(On the subject of intelligence: when used as a measure of people as a whole and as a basis to discriminate between people, yeah, it's hard to argue it isn't. On the other hand, I don't think completely excising the idea that some people tend to be better at certain things than others is at all realistic or useful, and some of the things that people can be good/not as good at are various mental tasks. That just needs to be recognized as not being the extent of a person's capabilities or The One Important Measure of Worth or whatever.)


----------



## Autumn

Perhaps Amusing Things?


----------



## Spoon

Absurdity, perhaps? Silliness?


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

The Alcove of Amusement?

EDIT: Yeah, "Silliness" is good


----------



## Shiny Grimer

I once saw a black man complain about the use of the word denigrate because its origins are literally "to make black" and he was complaining that it was racist.

Now he is right - denigrate means to make something black and by association, to make it worse. But it had no association with black people (although it MAY have something to do with skin color, although only as a side effect?). Nobody, _nobody_ hears denigrate and thinks "oh yeah man, making things worse by associating them with black things/people" much like very few people nowadays hear decimate and think "a population has been lowered by one tenth" (except maybe opal or educated people).

My question is, how far should we go to avoid people's feelings being hurt? What if there is no option and whatever you do hurts people? Like in the autistic community, there's the argument between "person with autism" and "autistic person." There is no 3rd option. You are marginalizing a group no matter which one you use. Do you just say "fuck you" to the group that's smaller? To what lengths should one go to make sure nobody is hurt or bothered?

Basically, I'm kind of concerned that we're sort of worrying about issues that... in the end, won't really affect how people are treated. Saying "these nachos are insane" won't hurt anybody; saying "you're crazy because you're depressed (and therefore your opinions don't matter)" will. Language is very complicated and saying "okay this word has problematic origins; let's eliminate it regardless of its actual use nowadays" is ignoring that this is a nuanced situation.

As for insanity the forum, here's a good point. "Absurd" literally means "from a deaf/mute person." That didn't stop anybody here from suggesting it. It doesn't affect a deaf acquaintance of mine who's described things as absurd multiple things. So should we not use this word, absurd, because its origins may be problematic, even though I'm fairly certain it's not really ever been used as a slur or as a way to put down deaf/Deaf people?

(btw, I am mentally ill with anxiety and depression and am neurodivergent, so uh this isn't random able-minded person coming in and speaking about what concerns them. The issue of how mental health affects people is very serious and it's one of my points of contention irl)


----------



## Tarvos

... said:


> I once saw a black man complain about the use of the word denigrate because its origins are literally "to make black" and he was complaining that it was racist.
> 
> Now he is right - denigrate means to make something black and by association, to make it worse. But it had no association with black people (although it MAY have something to do with skin color, although only as a side effect?). Nobody, _nobody_ hears denigrate and thinks "oh yeah man, making things worse by associating them with black things/people" much like very few people nowadays hear decimate and think "a population has been lowered by one tenth" (except maybe opal or educated people).
> 
> My question is, how far should we go to avoid people's feelings being hurt? What if there is no option and whatever you do hurts people? Like in the autistic community, there's the argument between "person with autism" and "autistic person." There is no 3rd option. You are marginalizing a group no matter which one you use. Do you just say "fuck you" to the group that's smaller? To what lengths should one go to make sure nobody is hurt or bothered?
> 
> Basically, I'm kind of concerned that we're sort of worrying about issues that... in the end, won't really affect how people are treated. Saying "these nachos are insane" won't hurt anybody; saying "you're crazy because you're depressed (and therefore your opinions don't matter)" will. Language is very complicated and saying "okay this word has problematic origins; let's eliminate it regardless of its actual use nowadays" is ignoring that this is a nuanced situation.
> 
> As for insanity the forum, here's a good point. "Absurd" literally means "from a deaf/mute person." That didn't stop anybody here from suggesting it. It doesn't affect a deaf acquaintance of mine who's described things as absurd multiple things. So should we not use this word, absurd, because its origins may be problematic, even though I'm fairly certain it's not really ever been used as a slur or as a way to put down deaf/Deaf people?
> 
> (btw, I am mentally ill with anxiety and depression and am neurodivergent, so uh this isn't random able-minded person coming in and speaking about what concerns them. The issue of how mental health affects people is very serious and it's one of my points of contention irl)


I am not sure in how far the last paragraph applies to myself, but other than that I agree 100% with this post.


----------



## Autumn

I guess the question is "how recently was the word in question used to describe a certain group of people". TCoD frowns upon the use of 'gay' and 'retarded' as insults because the insulting, marginalizing nature of those words is very much still present. However only some TCoDians are arguing that words such as 'crazy' and 'insane' should be outlawed because the association between those words and mentally ill people, while present, is not as implied in some contexts nearly as much as the association between 'gay' and 'retarded' and their more technical meanings (homosexuality and impaired intelligence) is. Going back even further, the word 'sinister' has its origins in the Latin word for the left hand, _sinestra_. The word evolved from meaning "left-handed" to meaning "evil", as if to suggest that left-handed people are evil, as some thought was the case centuries ago. However I have not heard any TCoDer arguing that the word sinister should be included in the list of words to ban. The word's colloquial definition, evil, has all but eclipsed its original association with left-handedness and certainly I don't think anyone thinks of an association that left-handed people are evil when using the word sinister.

So I guess the real question, for people who are concerned about the use of ableist slurs, is - do you want all words that have negative connotations _and_ have their origin in describing a certain sect of the population to be banned from use, or do you merely want to ban the ones that are still trigger-worthy? Does it have to do with whether the word is still used to refer to said sect of the population?

Basically, how do you determine which words are ableist slurs and which ones aren't? I mean, even Datura's list describing replacement words for ableist slurs included "absurd", which ... explained has its origins in - whoops - ableism. Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Spoon

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> So I guess the real question, for people who are concerned about the use of ableist slurs, is - do you want all words that have negative connotations _and_ have their origin in describing a certain sect of the population to be banned from use, or do you merely want to ban the ones that are still trigger-worthy? Does it have to do with whether the word is still used to refer to said sect of the population?


 The problem with using the term "trigger-worthy" is that potentially anything can be a trigger. I mean, yes, there's definitely things that are triggers to more people than others, but say (heads up, it's on a talk show and uses her phobia for the sake of humor) this lady who is deathly afraid of pickles. Should we put warnings for anything and everything that has triggered someone?

I mean, I would feel awful if I triggered someone (or if I have and no one's told me about it), but I don't know at what point or if there is a point where what I say won't cause someone somewhere to react negatively.


----------



## Ether's Bane

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> I guess the question is "how recently was the word in question used to describe a certain group of people". TCoD frowns upon the use of 'gay' and 'retarded' as insults because the insulting, marginalizing nature of those words is very much still present. However only some TCoDians are arguing that words such as 'crazy' and 'insane' should be outlawed because the association between those words and mentally ill people, while present, is not as implied in some contexts nearly as much as the association between 'gay' and 'retarded' and their more technical meanings (homosexuality and impaired intelligence) is. Going back even further, the word 'sinister' has its origins in the Latin word for the left hand, _sinestra_. The word evolved from meaning "left-handed" to meaning "evil", as if to suggest that left-handed people are evil, as some thought was the case centuries ago. However I have not heard any TCoDer arguing that the word sinister should be included in the list of words to ban. The word's colloquial definition, evil, has all but eclipsed its original association with left-handedness and certainly I don't think anyone thinks of an association that left-handed people are evil when using the word sinister.
> 
> So I guess the real question, for people who are concerned about the use of ableist slurs, is - do you want all words that have negative connotations _and_ have their origin in describing a certain sect of the population to be banned from use, or do you merely want to ban the ones that are still trigger-worthy? Does it have to do with whether the word is still used to refer to said sect of the population?
> 
> Basically, how do you determine which words are ableist slurs and which ones aren't? I mean, even Datura's list describing replacement words for ableist slurs included "absurd", which ... explained has its origins in - whoops - ableism. Where do you draw the line?


This is exactly why I feel the terms discussed for banning should not be banned - it leads to a slippery slope. How do you justify banning words like "denigrate" and "sinister", which had their meanings changed centuries ago? Answer: you can't.



Hiikaru said:


> I'm also really curious about thoughts on uses of "crazy" as an actually-positive thing, like as a way of saying "wow, this is incredible and amazing and cool"! I was watching a video series about the universe and the narrator kept going on about how "crazy" the universe is in the sense that it's really amazing! Is using it as a good thing suddenly okay, or is it still bad because that kind of definition can really only come from having it mean things like "ridiculous" or "outlandish", first? Does it still give people the wrong idea and still remind them of the negative use?


No. Even if I found the word "crazy" offensive (I don't, by the way), I'd be perfectly okay with its use as a positive.




> Language evolving is important to take note of, sure! A word trying to evolve isn't always _good_, though. People take words that others needed and turn them into bad mean things! If a word is evolving to get worse and meaner, then why shouldn't people try hard to stop it from happening?


Would you also be against a word's evolving in a more positive direction? Have a look at this:



			
				wordcentral.com said:
			
		

> Five hundred years ago, when "nice" was first used in English, it meant "foolish or stupid." This is not as surprising as it may seem, since it came through early French from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." By the 16th century, the sense of being "very particular" or "finicky" had developed. In the 19th century, "nice" came to mean "pleasant or agreeable" and then "respectable," a sense quite unlike its original meaning.


I understand what some of you are trying to achieve, and eradicating ableism on the forum (or, indeed, anywhere) is a noble goal, but I don't think this is a good way of going about it.

And now, although I hate this song, I feel like lightening the mood in this thread a little. :P


----------



## surskitty

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> I guess the question is "how recently was the word in question used to describe a certain group of people". TCoD frowns upon the use of 'gay' and 'retarded' as insults because the insulting, marginalizing nature of those words is very much still present. However only some TCoDians are arguing that words such as 'crazy' and 'insane' should be outlawed because the association between those words and mentally ill people, while present, is not as implied in some contexts nearly as much as the association between 'gay' and 'retarded' and their more technical meanings (homosexuality and impaired intelligence) is.
> 
> So I guess the real question, for people who are concerned about the use of ableist slurs, is - do you want all words that have negative connotations _and_ have their origin in describing a certain sect of the population to be banned from use, or do you merely want to ban the ones that are still trigger-worthy? Does it have to do with whether the word is still used to refer to said sect of the population?


I'm uncomfortable with the word 'crazy'; I just fucking hate speaking up.  And 'crazy' to mean 'unbelievable' is a pretty common thing regardless of where it's applied.  And, uh, ew.

how about we go for ones that definitely are making people uncomfortable and not worry about ones where the etymology is far enough removed no one cares

i don't think anyone is proposing telling people to stop saying 'sinister'.


----------



## octobr

if someone 

asks you not to use a word

because it upsets them

then don't

use

the word

how is this difficult i don't understand i really really don't why do we have to argue about what the word ~*ACTUALLY*~ means and whether its impact is really important and if it'll lead to this that or the other thing why do we have to argue that instead of say 'oh dang, this upsets at least one person! we should stop.' 

ssss


----------



## Minish

I'm not touching much else, but you lot are playing devil's advocate way more than is necessary! No-one has argued in favour of enforcing vocabulary checks for some time now. Nobody really wants to do that, so nobody is going to respond to you!

We can theorise about imaginary scenarios and the limits of what we do forever but what matters most is actual practice. I've never been requested to respect a particularly unconventional or 'silly' trigger. I've never been asked not to use 'sinister' because _left-handed people aren't actually oppressed by this_ ... whereas 'crazy' is used to dismiss mentally ill people on a daily basis.

Yes, it's impossible to be perfect about this. We are all in agreement there. The point is putting it into practice, which is a lot harder than theorising about slippery slopes, and trying to make the least amount of people unhappy as possible.

If you don't really have anything new to say, please consider not continuing this one for the sake of devil's advocacy.


----------



## Autumn

surskitty said:


> I'm uncomfortable with the word 'crazy'; I just fucking hate speaking up.  And 'crazy' to mean 'unbelievable' is a pretty common thing regardless of where it's applied.  And, uh, ew.
> 
> how about we go for ones that definitely are making people uncomfortable and not worry about ones where the etymology is far enough removed no one cares
> 
> i don't think anyone is proposing telling people to stop saying 'sinister'.





Verne said:


> if someone
> 
> asks you not to use a word
> 
> because it upsets them
> 
> then don't
> 
> use
> 
> the word
> 
> how is this difficult i don't understand i really really don't why do we have to argue about what the word ~*ACTUALLY*~ means and whether its impact is really important and if it'll lead to this that or the other thing why do we have to argue that instead of say 'oh dang, this upsets at least one person! we should stop.'
> 
> ssss


I never said I would continue to use certain words because of the fact that it's hard to tell what is offensive and what isn't! If someone doesn't want me to use a word I won't and I'm sorry that I gave off the impression that I'm _that fucking insensitive_, since that wasn't my intention. I was just talking about, if addendums were to be made to the rules along the lines of "words with a) negative connotations b) origins in relating to certain minorities are to be banned", where do you make the distinctions? ... is all I was saying. I'm going to make an effort to stop using some words but my replacement for crazy/insane was going to be absurd and it's like, but that can be offensive as well so what ...

but I'm sorry if I've come across negatively, really!!


----------



## octobr

i think it's pretty logical that you're not going to be like reported and banned the first time you use a word someone finds upsetting. they're going to ask you not to use it and after that it's up to you not to be rude

unless it's something obviously assholish in which case, well


----------



## Autumn

well alright then! I'll shut up in this thread now and just make an effort to be more conscientious.


----------



## Butterfree

When it comes to crazy, etc., those words _very much are_ still used to refer to mental illness, which I think is a bit different from words nobody even associates with where they originated. If there were an actual person here who was hurt by the word 'absurd', then yeah, let's not use it... but I doubt that considerably more than I doubted the presence of people who are triggered by "crazy" etc., because that doesn't have the connection to the disability _at all_ anymore, unlike "crazy" which still has it but has just become pretty divorced from it in many contexts. Nobody ever, ever uses "absurd" today to mean anything relating to deafness, or to disparage people who are, and the same with "sinister"; what I was saying about magical thinking in one of my earlier posts applies. There is no pathway through which using those words with their current meaning can contribute to oppression, nor can I see how they could trigger people when only very few people alive today even know the old meaning, much less have heard them used as slurs.

Actual non-trolling members of the forums have come out and said they're personally made uncomfortable when they hear the word 'crazy' even in innocuous contexts; I don't think going "but it doesn't hurt anyone" makes a lot of sense at this point. No, we're not talking about infracting people for it - we've never been talking about that. We're talking about polite requests to find different words. It's a bit different from being pickle-phobic when it _is_ rooted in actual oppression and discrimination that hordes of people experience.


----------



## yiran

Hiikaru said:


> I'm really confused about why it's even relevant! Throwing harmful words around has basically zero similarities to choosing to play games and then not having time for the games!


Yes. But well, I have to be proved to be egotistical for it to end, because I like comparing my personal situations with bigger situations! Yet people just grasp on errors in the small situation and ignore the logic part of my argument on the big situation! Yes, I am egotistical. Wait, is that a mental illness classification? Does that give me more right to whine about stuff? So if I'm disabled I have more right to have opinions on matters? That's what I've interpreted from reading some posts in this thread.

Anyway, that's straying quite far in a paragraph that's not exactly long.

Okay, so intelligence is probably ableist by most of your standards. It isn't by mine. I've already said why in my first post.

And I do know what being inferior feels like. Not in the mental sense, but I'm the worst at Art in my year. And it's not like as if I ask the teacher to give me a higher grade just because I might get offended by a lower grade. It's completely fair to give person with mental illness that cannot perform well a lower grade.

And for another example, is it fair to ask a group of children against their will to stop playing their basketball game and instead play video games with a disabled kid? If they're forced to not play basketball, that's a group of unhappy kids and one happy kid. If they continue playing basketball, that's one unhappy kid and a group of unhappy kids. I think having the majority to be satisfied is more humane. Of course, if you're trying to persuade the sporty kids to do it without any force, that'd be fine, but they have the right to do whatever they want (well, when they're adults anyway, and that's what this analogy is really about).

That's how the society works.

You might have a problem with that. I don't. Most of the society doesn't. People who are stronger get better treatment. That's how we evolved. That's how we will always be. If you disagree, you can rant about it all you want.

I'm not heartless as you may think me to be. I excel in maths and sciences, and I frequently help people who aren't so good at the subjects to achieve better grades. No one but one of my friends help me for art, so it's not like it's for profit or anything. I don't just want to isolate all inferior people. But if they get worse on their test, they get worse on their test. It's quite simple, really.

(This place is so liberal it starts becoming not liberal of slightly less un-liberal ideas anymore. D: )

+++
And just to be somewhat relevant to the main discussion about whether words such as "crazy" are allowed, well, I don't really use those kind of words, but I personally would rather have them not banned because it allows me to judge a person's character better over the Internet. Like people who swear against me or call me stuff! I'm not offended, I just gain more knowledge and insight, and knowledge is power! And power is helpful. Well, if other people get offended by it, sure, don't use it against them, but using it on me's completely fine. :D


----------



## shy ♡

yiran said:


> (This place is so liberal it starts becoming not liberal of slightly less un-liberal ideas anymore. D: )


You clearly do not understand what 'liberal' means. It does not mean 'accepting of all things'. It means I have certain viewpoints on certain things. Liberal is no more accepting of all things than conservatism is. It just accepts different things. I will say again _I am not going to pretend that I accept your views_ when your views are clearly bigoted and douchy. 

If you openly admit that you are egotistical, and you literally think that being egotistical is a mental illness, there is no point in even talking to you. (There isn't any point talking to you regardless because you are using social darwinism as an excuse to be an asshole.)


----------



## Butterfree

> Yes. But well, I have to be proved to be egotistical for it to end! Yes, I am egotistical. Wait, is that a mental illness classification? Does that give me more right to whine about stuff? So if I'm disabled I have more right to have opinions on matters? That's what I've interpreted from reading some posts in this thread.


For Christ's sake, nobody at all has said only disabled people can have an opinion. We're not saying you can't have an opinion; we're saying your opinion is bigoted and ignorant, quite apart from how big your ego is or how able-bodied you are or any other properties of you as a person.



> And for another example, is it fair to ask a group of children against their will to stop playing their basketball game and instead play video games with a disabled kid? If they're forced to not play basketball, that's a group of unhappy kids and one happy kid. If they continue playing basketball, that's one unhappy kid and a group of unhappy kids. I think having the majority to be satisfied is more humane.


This is nonsense. Any game they play is going to preclude them playing some other game in that gym class; acting as if doing X instead of Y is infringing on their right to do Y is just silly. Nobody is preventing those kids from playing basketball; they just can't do so _with somebody who is unable to play basketball_, and in a gym class that needs to pick an activity everyone in the class can take part in, they're going to have to pick something other than basketball. Anyone is free to play basketball at any other time that isn't organized by a school funded partly by the taxes of that disabled student (or their parents).

I don't think anybody is saying people can't be good at things, or better than other people at things; like I was getting at in one of my previous posts, the problem with intelligence is more the classification of some kids as just being all-around better than others based on their scores at particular mental tasks.



> (This place is so liberal it starts becoming not liberal of slightly less un-liberal ideas anymore. D: )


Arguing is not discrimination. You have a right to speak your mind, to the extent allowed by the rules; you don't have a right to not be criticized for your ideas no matter how abhorrent. In case you haven't noticed, we're arguing for the rights of disabled _people_, not for the sanctity of disabled people's _ideas_. Nobody's ideas are sacred, but _people_ should be treated with respect and dignity. Comparing discrimination of people with "discrimination against ideas" (i.e. people strongly disagreeing with your particular ideas, oh no) and somehow finding the latter to be the problem is ridiculous.


----------



## yiran

Somewhere it has been said that "you as an able-bodied person have no idea how the disabled feel" and there is a strong implication that I don't have the right to argue about this topic.

You know, since this isn't a legal argument or anything, I'm not going to check things up, but I'm pretty sure schools don't have the right to alter able-bodied students' courses for a minority of disabled students. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.)

Oh and it's not something as trivial as silly or nonsense if they're forced to cater to the disabled against their will when they have the right to go through with what they would have done.

"_...the problem with intelligence is more the classification of some kids as just being all-around better than others based on their scores at particular mental tasks._"

Well, if it's true, then it's true. If it does it without being testing all-round and having solid evidence, then it is at fault, but fundamentally the concept "intelligence" is fine.

As for liberalness, people have been calling me "ass" and my views are "douchy" (which clearly implies that I'm a "douchebag". And, well, that's not very liberal, is it? Liberal means to be accepting of new things instead of old, while all I see is this community striving to keep their old views.

Also, if you're arguing against others' opinions, then you pretty much are "bigoted". So yeah. And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but if it were the real condition, I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people that don't have this "high intelligence", because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else. So I guess I am heartless after all, huh? Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.


----------



## surskitty

Butterfree said:


> I don't think anybody is saying people can't be good at things, or better than other people at things; like I was getting at in one of my previous posts, the problem with intelligence is more the classification of some kids as just being all-around better than others based on their scores at particular mental tasks.


I'd say it's also that there's definitely a perception that if you're not one of the ones who get good at a given thing _quickly,_ or what other people perceive as easily, it's not worth trying to do it.  Even if you're not the fastest at, say, learning how to write well, that doesn't mean you shouldn't write; if you want to write, write.  The way to fail at writing is to stop.  Expecting everyone to conform to the same standards is absurd.  Telling someone they're not smart, or not as smart as this other person, and implying that that means they shouldn't try to learn what they find interesting or fun because they might not be as good at it as someone else is both really common and fucked up.

Regardless of how ableist the concept of intelligence is, it's not actually productive in a lot of contexts it gets used in.  Intelligence tends to get weighted heavier than interest or effort.


----------



## shy ♡

yiran said:


> As for liberalness, people have been calling me "ass" and my views are "douchy" (which clearly implies that I'm a "douchebag". And, well, that's not very liberal, is it? Liberal means to be accepting of new things instead of old, while all I see is this community striving to keep their old views.
> 
> Also, if you're arguing against others' opinions, then you pretty much are "bigoted". So yeah. And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people with mental illness, because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else. So I guess I am heartless after all, huh? Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.


I ALREADY TOLD YOU THAT IS NOT WHAT LIBERALISM FUCKING MEANS. In addition THAT IS NOT WHAT BIGOTRY MEANS. Arguing with someone else _does not make you a bigot_ are you fucking _serious_. 

Why don't you just go pray to your Ayn Rand bibles then ok :) :) :)


----------



## Butterfree

yiran said:


> Somewhere it has been said that "you as an able-bodied person have no idea how the disabled feel" and there is a strong implication that I don't have the right to argue about this topic.


Well, yes, if you're not disabled, you may not know what you're talking about once you get to trying to make statements about how disabled people feel. Saying you're uninformed on a particular topic because you haven't actually experienced it isn't bigotry or silencing. If you started going on about how menstruation feels, it would also be perfectly valid to go, "Uh, being that you don't have a uterus, you don't really know what you're talking about." That's not discrimination; it's just a fact about your qualifications to speak on subject X. Someone who has been in a wheelchair all their life trying to speak about how running feels would get the same thing - only that doesn't really happen, because mostly it's majorities that think they know better than minorities what their own experiences are like, not the other way around.



> You know, since this isn't a legal argument or anything, I'm not going to check things up, but I'm pretty sure schools don't have the right to alter able-bodied students' courses for a minority of disabled students. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.)
> 
> Oh and it's not something as trivial as silly or nonsense if they're forced to cater to the disabled against their will when they have the right to go through with what they would have done.


What? ?_? They don't have a "right to go through with what they would have done". What kind of a "right" even is that? If that were a right, you'd have to allow _everything_. Say you're going to punch someone, and then someone points out that actually assault is illegal. Are they trying to "force you to cater to the victim against your will"? Do you have a "right to go through with what you would have done" and punch them anyway? Yes, this really is exactly analogous. Willfully excluding disabled people from public school activities _hurts them_. It's not magically okay because they planned it before taking the disabled student into account.



> As for liberalness, people have been calling me "ass" and my views are "douchy" (which clearly implies that I'm a "douchebag". And, well, that's not very liberal, is it?


pathos said you were "being an asshole" and that your _views_ were "douchy", which, while toeing the line, is still targeting your behaviour in the thread and not you as a person. Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with liberalness, or that it would matter one bit if it did (even if you were to define liberalness as smiling and nodding when people are being bigoted, all I have to say to that is, "Well, then I'm not liberal").



> Liberal means to be accepting of new things instead of old, while all I see is this community striving to keep their old views.


Excluding disabled people and refusing to accommodate them is the "old view". If liberalism meant what you think it means, then liberals would be forced to constantly change their minds back and forth, because after all, when you've convinced them they shouldn't accommodate the disabled, somebody else could come along and argue that they should, and they'd have to accept _that_ "new view". Again, if you do define it to mean that, then no, we're not liberals! Going "You're liberals, so because I define it as X you're supposed to believe X" is nonsense; we believe what we believe, and "liberal" is just a descriptor that encompasses some of it (when used correctly, that is, and not in the ridiculous strawman definitions you keep making up). Saying our opinions aren't liberal just means we're not liberal by whatever definition you're using, not that oh, no, our ~liberal identity~ means we must change our opinions to conform to what liberalism is supposed to be. We don't believe these things because we've adopted a label called "liberal" and think this is what being "liberal" means; we believe these things because we think all people should have equal rights and respect. You can use any word you like for that for all I care, but I'm whichever word means that.



> Also, if you're arguing against others' opinions, then you pretty much are "bigoted". So yeah.


By your definition, then sure, I'm bigoted, and so is everyone else who meaningfully cares about anything that matters. You're disagreeing and arguing with us, too; are people only bigots in your view if they disagree with you?

Again: there is a difference between opinions and people. There is nothing intolerant about criticizing somebody's opinions. (Or, if you decide to hijack the definition of 'intolerant' too, criticizing somebody's opinions and discriminating against them as people are two completely different things, and I (and most people here) are against the latter but not the former.)



> And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people with mental illness, because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else. So I guess I am heartless after all, huh? Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.


Evolution does not mean what you think it means. Normal human beings are perfectly capable of having compassion for people who are suffering, and that moral sense is at least partly evolved, through fairly well-understood evolutionary mechanisms. Caring only about yourself is is not mandated by nature, and that is not an excuse. (EDIT: To say this less stupidly: morality is probably partly evolved, and selflessness can definitely occur in nature. But _even that_ is irrelevant, because "it's natural" has no bearing on its moral status. Morality is only derived from what's evolutionarily advantageous in a very, very distant, abstract sense, and then only in a setting-certain-rules-of-thumb-which-we-then-follow-regardless-of-actual-adaptive-value way.)

If you truly just don't give a damn about others and happily think you're just better than disabled people, good for you, but you can't wave a magic wand and forbid us to think that's a morally abhorrent viewpoint.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

I'm not quite educated enough to contribute well to the argument proper, in my opinion, but...



> Well, I'm with those who support being self-serving, because... we're animals evolved to do that.


An example of an animal less advanced than a human showing selflessness.



> [A rat that can open cages is experimented upon] [Scientists] placed  rats in a Plexiglass pen with two cages: in one was another rat, in the  other was a pile of five milk chocolate chips—a favorite snack of these  particular rodents. The unrestricted rats could easily have eaten the  chocolate themselves before freeing their peers or been so distracted by  the sweets that they would neglect their imprisoned friends. Instead,  most of the rats opened both cages and shared in the chocolate chip  feast.


Turns out that animals aren't always jerks.


----------



## yiran

surskitty said:


> Regardless of how ableist the concept of intelligence is, it's not actually productive in a lot of contexts it gets used in.  Intelligence tends to get weighted heavier than interest or effort.


This is correct. However, it is productive and beneficial to the persons who are measuring intelligence (otherwise they just wouldn't do it), and I know this is just plain unfair but sometimes intelligence actually does matter more than interest effort.



Butterfree said:


> That's not discrimination; it's just a fact about your qualifications to speak on subject X.


Arguments don't need qualifications. And I've already given a (admittedly minor) example of where I'm of the less abled and how I've felt about it, so I'm technically qualified for that too.



> What kind of a "right" even is that?


Right to basic education that would have happened without the disabled person?



> Willfully excluding disabled people from public school activities _hurts them_.


A lot of random things hurt random people.

And also, there's a difference between this and the analogy you made; one is actively trying to hurt someone and the other is passively ignoring them. 



> pathos said you were "being an asshole" and that your _views_ were "douchy", which, while toeing the line, is still targeting your behaviour in the thread and not you as a person.


So rules should be followed strictly to guidelines without concern of contextual knowledge? Come on, I mean, you've already admitted he's toeing the line, but you're still defending him because it fits the forum rules. But then again it's your forum so, whatever you say.



> By your definition, then sure, I'm bigoted,


What I mean is that if you think I'm bigoted, then you are too. For the record, I don't think any of us is bigoted.



> Again: there is a difference between opinions and people. There is nothing intolerant about criticizing somebody's opinions.


There is, but it's quite subtle. Criticising somebody's opinions heavily with vulgar language might as well just be criticising that person. Not that I care about it happening to myself, but.



> Caring only about yourself is is not mandated by nature, and that is not an excuse.


Care to explain why that isn't an excuse?



> If you truly just don't give a damn about others and happily think you're just better than disabled people, good for you, but you can't wave a magic wand and forbid us to think that's a morally abhorrent viewpoint.


Well, at least I can salvage in the rest of the world not thinking my view as an morally abhorrent viewpoint ;_; but yes I'm morally abhorrent, if that's what you want to think me as! I still think every person should be valued by what they are and how useful they are! But you're just oxytocin overloaded people to me, and not all that practical either s:

+++
Anyway, the reason why we (and animals) help others is because we can expect help in return when we are in a time of need. It's probably what subconsciously drives me to help my friends with things. Every single act that an organism does is rooted to the survival of themselves and/or their genes. (Unless there was a mutation or something and their brain wiring went wrong but that's kinda irrelevant.)
+++

If we consider everyone equal, then aren't we just faceless beings without any strengths or weaknesses that matter?

(Wow that just sounded like anti-Communist stuff)


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate

yiran said:


> Every single act that an organism does is rooted to the survival of themselves and/or their genes.


Haircuts? Art? Skydiving? Masturbation? Debating the policy towards ableism on a pokémon forum?


----------



## surskitty

yiran said:


> And for another example, is it fair to ask a group of children against their will to stop playing their basketball game and instead play video games with a disabled kid? If they're forced to not play basketball, that's a group of unhappy kids and one happy kid. If they continue playing basketball, that's one unhappy kid and a group of unhappy kids. I think having the majority to be satisfied is more humane. Of course, if you're trying to persuade the sporty kids to do it without any force, that'd be fine, but they have the right to do whatever they want (well, when they're adults anyway, and that's what this analogy is really about).


okay I'm not going to respond to most of this because there is only so much I have the energy for, but ... video games?  _really?_
people with physical disabilities can still do sports, or at least exercise, even if not always the same things or in the same ways
for one, there is this thing known as the paralympics
even with things like Ehlers-Danlos (which causes joint hyperextension among a billion other things; it is genetic and awful) or much more minor things like POTS (which involves nasty things with blood pressure and fainting) or asthma, there is still physical activity people can and should do!  not necessarily at the same speed, or in the same amounts, but _everyone_ needs exercise.

If someone has significant enough physical issues that they can't participate in PE class, with either a more personalised thing (one of my friends and I got out of doing a lot of things in high school PE in exchange for instead walking around the track all class period.  Unfortunately, in middle school, none of my teachers accommodated me at all and instead I just hoped very hard I wouldn't faint.  This worked about as well as you could guess.  Actually, slightly better: I skipped class a lot.  Fainting sucks.  I wouldn't recommend it.) or having a curriculum that's a bit less insistent on SPORTS.  TEAM SPORTS.  TEAM SPORTS ALL THE TIME, then they should really be excused from PE.  But consider: archery exists.  Weight-lifting is easy to adjust to the speeds someone can actually go at.

Accommodating people is not nearly as hard as you seem to think it is.  Schools do tend to have people with disabilities either suck it up (which. doesn't work so well.) or do something else, but this isn't nearly as necessary as some teachers act like it is.  Archery unit!  I have been in a PE class where that happened and it was the one time I didn't absolutely hate having to go to school on days I had PE.  Holy shit, not getting yelled at for not wanting to do things that make me physically ill, who WOULD have thought.

Accommodating people also _doesn't mean fucking everyone else over_.  I am not sure where you are getting this.

That scenario's also pretty tired and irrelevant, given that it's in response to having to refrain from being an asshole by using a few words that make people very upset.  What, are you next going to object loudly to the rule about not posting flashing gifs outside of a hide tag?

At the moment it looks like you're having a hell of a time figuring out that people with disabilities _are people_.  Not everyone's body works ideally!  Sometimes the bits that don't work quite right (or quite like everyone else's) include the brain.  It happens.  Doesn't make people with disabilities less people than people without.


----------



## yiran

Blastoise Fortooate said:


> Haircuts? Art? Skydiving? Masturbation? Debating the policy towards ableism on a pokémon forum?


Haircuts - more attractive to attract potential mates, also less lice.

Art - a way of earning money to live, and psychological satisfaction for the viewers.

Skydiving - the curiosity of experimenting this is from the drive of curiosity to know things, because the knowledge of skydiving might be helpful someday. Also working your muscles and yay for myoglobin and other sciency stuff about exercise being good.

Masturbation - physical and psychological satisfaction, higher sexual potency.

Debating - psychological satisfaction by knowing your opinion is SUPERIOR to others.

Not every specific example counts (sloths sometimes slow their metabolisms down so much they starve to death with a full stomach), especially humans since we're not that adapted to live in this environment of society and stuff (which is why people are being anti-me even though it doesn't help their survival).



> there is this thing known as the paralympics


Convince able-bodied people to play wheelchair basketball.



> Accommodating people also doesn't mean fucking everyone else over.


But not accomodating them also isn't "fucking them over". Also,



> But consider: archery exists. Weight-lifting is easy to adjust to the speeds someone can actually go at.


Changing your cirriculum to different sports is a pretty big deal.



> At the moment it looks like you're having a hell of a time figuring out that people with disabilities are people. Not everyone's body works ideally! Sometimes the bits that don't work quite right (or quite like everyone else's) include the brain. It happens. Doesn't make people with disabilities less people than people without.


True. They are considered under the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". But the fact is that other people also are, and they have the "right" to play non-wheelchair basketball (if it's in the public school's curriculum), and while the disabled people do they physically can't because of no one's fault. Accomodating people is very nice, but it's not an obligation.

js I do accomodate less abled people


----------



## Negrek

So I saw these posts of a kind that I dislike where people completely misuse science in pursuit of their argument and wrote most of a big rant about how terrible I think that is. But then I was like "Wait, it's like 3:30 AM, you should just save what you've written, go to bed, and decide if it's worth posting in the morning." But then I refreshed the thread and saw that this nonsense _was still going on and getting more ridiculous_ and then I realized that no, there would be no sleep. Sorry to go off on you like this, because it's not like this is the first time I've seen this kind of thing go on; in the future I'll just link to this post when I see it happening and start getting angry.

"Evolution" does not have a direct effect on an individual's temperament, personality, and above all personal choice and actions. An individual's behavior is not somehow "optimized" for superior survival and reproduction, and everything that one does is _absolutely_ not directly related to survival and reproduction, and this is especially the case with humans, who have all this funky culture-y stuff sitting on top of our genetic behaviors and causing us to do damn strange things from time to time. One can definitely conjecture about why, for example, the drive to create art might be advantageous for the human species as a whole, but trying to link that to the fact that you felt like you wanted to doodle in class today is pointless. You do not doodle in class because this is what evolution has built you to do anymore than you doodle in class because cosmic events caused the earth to be formed in such a way as to support the development of intelligent life, boring lectures and, eventually, pencils. I mean, _yes_, there is some truth to that statement; you certainly would not be doodling if some teensy self-replicating thing had not appeared out of the primordial stew billions of years ago. Nevertheless, an understanding of the descent of life as we know it does not really do much to enrich one's appreciations behind the specific causes of your behavior at that time.

All that aside, it's almost always a bad idea to bring up scientific studies in this kind of context for many reasons:

1) It's inevitably Not that Simple; the study of altruism and its potential evolutionary purpose is a lively field, full of deliciously passive-aggressive research papers about how theory X is wrong but my theory Y over here is totally legit, for example. It's not like "Science has found the answer!!!" here. 
2) Our understanding of what makes animals, human or otherwise, tick beyond the very most basic level, is still extremely primitive, and most of it is likely wrong.
3) Experiments that attempt to study these sorts of things are especially prone to methodological problems and creative results interpretation, often because questions about human behavior and evolution have a tendency to be experimentally intractable.
4) Human behavior is not well-represented by that of any other species. Our species appears to rely on culture to guide our behavior far more than any other species on earth. Attempting to draw conclusions about human behavior based on animal behavior is therefore a very dicey business.

But most especially,

5) Science is not a prescriptive tool. It has no ethical dimension; it deals, as best it can, in facts and laws. So when you say, "science says this, therefore it is GOOD/BAD that I do X," you are almost always doing it wrong. Science can only say, "X happens," and if we're super-lucky, "X happens because of Y," or even, "if X happens, then Y will happen." But that does not make X happening a desirable or undesirable thing. Say that there is evolutionary pressure towards people being self-interested. Does that mean that it is _good_ to be self-interested? I don't know! Certainly the statement "there is evolutionary pressure towards being self-interested" doesn't say that. When you say that science suggests an underlying cause behind something that you or someone else does, if you then go on to state that this is somehow right or wrong, please understand that you are making a leap that the facts do not support. You are operating under the unstated assumption that what is in accordance with natural selection is automatically right/only to be expected/"just the way things are," and that assumption can be debated and attacked in its own right. And we can come to that point _only if_ we accept the further assumption that evolution has any kind of relevant bearing on the day-to-day lives of individuals (not very likely, in my opinion).

I apologize for going off on a huge snarky tangent over a pretty minor comment or two, but whenever I see people trying to bring up SCIENCE!!! in these sorts of debates it almost invariably gives me the sads. If you're feeling the itch to pull a "but SCIENCE!! says!" in a debate, please take a moment to really consider what SCIENCE!! _actually says_, and whether you are actually coloring scientific fact with your own interpretations and value judgments, which may or may not be shared by the other people in the debate and can certainly be argued over. And if you ever feel the need to state as a fact some sweeping generalization about how people behave that is in fact hotly debated among scientists and only tangentially related to your claim without providing any sort of citations or explicating your actual argument, please envision your favorite scientist (we'll say Einstein if you're at a loss) drifting out of your computer screen and smacking you with a rolled-up copy of _Nature_. And then don't make the post.


----------



## Tarvos

Naturalistic fallacy ahoy!


----------



## yiran

If that's how you speak when you're angry you must be an amazing person because I actually felt happy reading that.

Anyway, what you say is true, we don't know too much about psychology (especially of animals), we are not designed to function in a society with culture and stuff (I kind of mentioned that), and science does not have ethical implications.

The thing is, I'm not saying that helping disabled people is unethical. I'm saying that not helping the disabled isn't unethical, because, well, I want to live well. I'm not saying that disabled people are burdens to people's well being, but if I find it bothersome to deal with them then I don't think I am morally abhorrent.

Oh, and I'm far too lazy of a person to find citations for this kind of argument. Q_Q


----------



## Autumn

yiran said:


> The thing is, I'm not saying that helping disabled people is unethical. I'm saying that not helping the disabled isn't unethical, because, well, I want to live well. I'm not saying that disabled people are burdens to people's well being, but if I find it bothersome to deal with them then I don't think I am morally abhorrent.


what if you went to school one day and you were in english class and your english teacher said "Okay, students, I want each of you to draw the scene that you think is most important in X book. You will be graded on the quality of your artistic ability." what would you do.



> Oh, and I'm far too lazy of a person to find citations for this kind of argument. Q_Q


then don't expect people to take you seriously at all


----------



## yiran

Polymetric Sesquialtera said:


> what if you went to school one day and you were in english class and your english teacher said "Okay, students, I want each of you to draw the scene that you think is most important in X book. You will be graded on the quality of your artistic ability." what would you do.


I'm only the worst art student in the year because all the worse students don't take Art. English is mandatory, and there're some worse drawers in my Engilsh class...

Anyway I don't think that was your point. I'm not trying to be unhelpful, but I really can't imagine a scenario like that, because I just know it won't happen. =/


----------



## Adriane

yiran said:


> I'm only the worst art student in the year because all the worse students don't take Art. English is mandatory, and there're some worse drawers in my Engilsh class...


Really not getting why this is relevant.


> I'm not trying to be unhelpful, but I really can't imagine a scenario like that, because I just know it won't happen. =/


It's not particularly difficult to discern _why_ said scenario wouldn't happen.


----------



## Autumn

yiran said:


> I'm only the worst art student in the year because all the worse students don't take Art. English is mandatory, and there're some worse drawers in my Engilsh class...
> 
> Anyway I don't think that was your point.


no. not at all.



> I'm not trying to be unhelpful, but I really can't imagine a scenario like that, because I just know it won't happen. =/


exactly


----------



## Zee Captain

I'm pretty sure Poly's argument is trying to show how it feels from that point of view. You say you're the worst in art class right? (Whether the worse people don't do it or what is irrelevant for right now) You are placed at a disadvantage to other students. If this was a very direct metaphor, other students may even tease you or ignore you because your painting wasnt up to snuff. Naturally you don't want people being mean to you, but a lifetime of this would leave you wanting to just be equal. (Granted I don't have a mental illness or physical handicap, but i know people who do and this is how I imagine it would be.) Helping the disabled doesn't mean all the other art classes would have to perform worse, but you'd appreciate it if you at least had a fair chance.

Now, the difference between art and a disability is that with practice, you would become better, even great if you really had the time and commitment to it. Unfortunately, it isn't the same for disabilities, and if you are autistic or have muscular dystrophy or whatever, that's something about you that isn't able to be negated.

The quote comes into mind about judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. If someone really physically can not do something and can't help it, it isn't fair to judge them to the same standards. 

If someone is failing a class because they don't try, by all means give them a big shiny F, but if someone is failing class because their brains are literally unable to work that way, you put them in a different class. 

In my school district they typically have a few classes specifically for the mentally disabled, tailored to the best way for them to learn. That wouldn't "hinder" your lifestyle, now would it?

That's my two cents anyway.


----------



## octobr

first off why haven't we addressed this



yiran said:


> And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people with mental illness, because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else.


because yo. yo??? YO excuse me did you really just say that people with mental illness are _less intelligent_ than you. i am straight up pissed off and I want an apology stat because you have just insinuated that because me and a lot of my friends are not wired the same as you are we are stupider. actually you didn't insinuate it you outright said it. that is Not Ok

anyway



> The thing is, I'm not saying that helping disabled people is unethical. I'm saying that not helping the disabled isn't unethical, because, well, I want to live well. I'm not saying that disabled people are burdens to people's well being, but if I find it bothersome to deal with them then I don't think I am morally abhorrent.


this here wigs me out

because you're saying that occasionally working with a disabled person's limits will restrict your ability to 'live well.' 

like no one wants you to break your legs so you don't have an advantage over people in wheelchairs, here

you want to live well. but so do the people with disabilities. it is not 'morally abhorrent' that you don't constantly accommodate for disabled people, but _it is morally abhorrent that in today's society people with disabilities are given the short end of the stick because of something out of their control._ it is downright Wrong that a person with a disability can't live life to the same extent as an abled person just because they have that disability. 

we're not going to force able people to play wheelchair basketball but why then do we force disabled people to live with activities that they can't physically perform


----------



## sovram

yiran you're not even presenting, like, well-formed arguments. or any sort of argument at all. you're just saying things like, "these human beings are burdensome to me, and I am Not Unethical for not caring about them" 

you're making me really sad so stop this please


----------



## Zee Captain

sovram said:


> yiran you're not even presenting, like, well-formed arguments. or any sort of argument at all. you're just saying things like, "these human beings are burdensome to me, and I am Not Unethical for not caring about them"
> 
> you're making me really sad so stop this please


I agree, yiran, most of your arguments seem to be derived from your personal, opinionated view on things rather than any intelligence about how school systems actually work or how disabled people actually work. You're honestly presenting yourself as sociopath. Don't make me go into how your claims are basically the same sort of tactics and arguments that you would hear from, say, a rascist.


----------



## yiran

> Now, the difference between art and a disability is that with practice, you would become better, even great if you really had the time and commitment to it. Unfortunately, it isn't the same for disabilities, and if you are autistic or have muscular dystrophy or whatever, that's something about you that isn't able to be negated.
> 
> The quote comes into mind about judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. If someone really physically can not do something and can't help it, it isn't fair to judge them to the same standards.
> 
> If someone is failing a class because they don't try, by all means give them a big shiny F, but if someone is failing class because their brains are literally unable to work that way, you put them in a different class.


Actually, I try very hard for art, but I still am the worst. Probably because my school has this category which "grades" you for effort, so effort doesn't go into the actual grade...

But I agree with you, you should put them in a different class to suit them better, if it doesn't "hinder" anyone else that is unrelated.



> because yo. yo??? YO excuse me did you really just say that people with mental illness are less intelligent than you. i am straight up pissed off and I want an apology stat because you have just insinuated that because me and a lot of my friends are not wired the same as you are we are stupider. actually you didn't insinuate it you outright said it. that is Not Ok


Okay, I should have worded it better, because it was under the condition of one of Butterfree's sentences and I should have added an "if". And I also meant "cognitive disabilities" rather than "mental illnesses". So sorry for offending you.



> you want to live well. but so do the people with disabilities. it is not 'morally abhorrent' that you don't constantly accommodate for disabled people, but it is morally abhorrent that in today's society people with disabilities are given the short end of the stick because of something out of their control. it is downright Wrong that a person with a disability can't live life to the same extent as an abled person just because they have that disability.


I'm all for the physically disabled to hav education. The thing is, there's just things they can't do. For instance, a person has a less common affliction, perhaps the lack of fingers. Should the school completely change their art course to be possible for the person who has no fingers because the person cannot draw with brushes, pastels, and pens? I'd think not. While I do realise that it is out of their control, it is also out of others' control. So the others don't have the responsibility to make them go through it.



> we're not going to force able people to play wheelchair basketball but why then do we force disabled people to live with activities that they can't physically perform


Are you saying that we should make activities like non-wheelchair basketball to not exist in public schools? I'm not really getting what you're saying here.



> yiran you're not even presenting, like, well-formed arguments. or any sort of argument at all.


Where are yours?

Also the difference between a racist and me, a supposed "ableist", would be that race has little to do with a person's actual ability to do anything but whether a person is competent or not is a major factor in people's ability to do productive tasks.


----------



## ultraviolet

yiran said:
			
		

> Are you saying that we should make activities like non-wheelchair basketball to not exist in public schools? I'm not really getting what you're saying here.


*NO*.



			
				yiran said:
			
		

> I'm all for the physically disabled to hav education. The thing is, there's just things they can't do. For instance, a person has a less common affliction, perhaps the lack of fingers. Should the school completely change their art course to be possible for the person who has no fingers because the person cannot draw with brushes, pastels, and pens?


*NO*.

Nobody is saying these things. You're not even arguing against anything anyone is saying anymore, you just keep making convoluted strawman arguments in which you're not actually replying to anyone but yourself. Then you click 'post' and everyone goes ??? and sighs in frustration.

In the same vein (and what this thread is actually about), you are not losing any rights by people asking you to not use certain words. If anything, you're infringing upon someone else's right to feel safe and comfortable at this forum by continuing to use words that upset them. I'm pretty sure you said at the start of this thread that you didn't actually have a problem with not using certain language when asked not to, so I don't even know why this is still going.


----------



## yiran

If I'm misinterpreting things, it is my fault, although I don't really get how. (Maybe people could specify more on things such as what "the short end of the stick" means? Judging by your response, I don't think what I've said really responded to the actual meaning of that.) But may you please point out how my argument is a strawman one? It may be misdirected, but I don't think it's strawman (people use that term way too much in arguments nowadays as just a term to demean the opponent when not actually pointing things out =/ )

And if you want me to be back on the main topic,


> If anything, you're infringing upon someone else's right to feel safe and comfortable at this forum by continuing to use words that upset them.


I have to disagree. Obviously, using words such as "retarded" is unacceptable, and possibly even "insane" and "crazy", but if someone asks me to stop using less severe words such as "stupid" and "mad" it's not very fair, is it?


----------



## Autumn

yiran said:


> I have to disagree. Obviously, using words such as "retarded" is unacceptable, and possibly even "insane" and "crazy", but if someone asks me to stop using less severe words such as "stupid" and "mad" it's not very fair, is it?


How can you decide what is "less severe" or not? It's not your place to decide what does and does not offend someone. If someone happens to be offended by stupid or mad, then _don't use those words._ How is it not fair? It's more unfair for people that are legitimately triggered by/uncomfortable with stupid or mad to have to suffer through it because someone who *isn't* triggered by those words decided that they have no reason to be triggered. You CANNOT DICTATE someone else's feelings. Seriously man how is it that hard to understand??

Also: your reply to verne's post said that you'd replace 'mental illnesses' with 'cognitive disabilities' so:



			
				yiran said:
			
		

> And yes, I guess I am ignorant to some degree of people who suffer from the supposed ableism brought up; but I would really just stay happy in the knowledge that I am of higher intelligence than people with cognitive disabilities, because they have nothing to do with me and I don't really care if they exist or even worse, use it as an excuse to hinder everyone else.


an excuse AN EXCUSE JFC DID YOU SERIOUSLY GO THERE

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND DISABILITIES _AT ALL_ DO YOU


----------



## Vipera Magnifica

There are several hundred thousand words in the English language. If someone feels upset by your particular word choice, _it isn't that hard to find an alternative._ Of course, you don't necessarily _have to_ change your diction to make others more comfortable, but you should probably _want to_ just to appear as less of an asshat.


----------



## Tarvos

> How is it not fair? It's more unfair for people that are legitimately triggered by/uncomfortable with stupid or mad to have to suffer through it because someone who *isn't* triggered by those words decided that they have no reason to be triggered. You CANNOT DICTATE someone else's feelings. Seriously man how is it that hard to understand??


I agree that there's a boundary on the language people are supposed to use, and that being directly insulting is one thing, but what if my triggers come from the word "salmon"?   Or "skyscraper"? What if I am altophobic and cannot deal with the idea of cliffs or skyscrapers and it sends me into a nervous panic? Should you forbid the word skyscraper or cliff or bluff because these words trigger altophobia?

This is a thin line. I'll give you another thing, which is an actual example that happens to me. The name of my ex is relatively common and I sometimes see it pop up in other places. This triggers a whole set of anxieties and I have to block things out and completely isolate and just do something mindless to solve the problem. I have had to ask my mutual friend to not use the name and not talk about her. But it's a common name and if I see someone mentioning it here (say we're talking about venerated Swedish authors) then is it your problem that seeing the name makes me go "ughhhh", even if it's entirely out of context?

There is a whole host of examples and triggers for nervosities, depressions, anxieties and all sorts of other things I can think of that are debilitating, and we can't go around not using those words and keeping track of whether person X suffers from them but person Y does not. In part, you are going to have to accept that some words are going to be used; some things are going to appear; and some things are simply not reasonable to demand the abolition of! The word "retarded" (in English) is an example of something we can do without. But are we going to ban "stupid"? "Silly"? "Idiotic" ? No, of course not, because these words represent real, useful concepts for real, useful expressions that we are going to use. Furthermore it is not always being used in the term of an insult:

You're an EFFING IDIOT has a COMPLETELY different nuance when you say it than "this is an idiotic statement" or "Obama's views on healthcare are idiotic" or "genital circumcision of females in Africa is a crazy business" (because crazy is literally what the latter IS!).

In part, we can be civil, but in part, we also have to deal with life and take that responsibility. I am willing to go one step and say "let us not use the word retarded" or "let us not assume that we are all binary" even if that means dealing with some reflexes in writing, but at some point we have to draw the line and say STOP, this as a human being you should reasonably be able to cope with.


----------



## Autumn

Tarvos said:


> I agree that there's a boundary on the language people are supposed to use, and that being directly insulting is one thing, but what if my triggers come from the word "salmon"?   Or "skyscraper"? What if I am altophobic and cannot deal with the idea of cliffs or skyscrapers and it sends me into a nervous panic? Should you forbid the word skyscraper or cliff or bluff because these words trigger altophobia?


I figure that words like this are not triggering for as many people as words like crazy, insane, stupid, mad. If someone was legitimately triggered by salmon or skyscraper, I would try my hardest to not use that word around them, but probably not erase it entirely from my vocabulary. However words like 'crazy' and 'insane' are not only triggering for more people consistently, they also imply negative things about a subset of people and add to the idea that mental illness is something to be avoided, which is not a good way to look at things. However salmon and skyscraper do not have negative connotations - they are the name of a fish and a term for tall buildings, and do not have negative connotations - so I wouldn't see the need to take the words out of my vocabulary permanently solely because one person is triggered. Crazy and insane contribute to a negative worldview, though, which I believe is where the difference lies.



> This is a thin line. I'll give you another thing, which is an actual example that happens to me. The name of my ex is relatively common and I sometimes see it pop up in other places. This triggers a whole set of anxieties and I have to block things out and completely isolate and just do something mindless to solve the problem. I have had to ask my mutual friend to not use the name and not talk about her. But it's a common name and if I see someone mentioning it here (say we're talking about venerated Swedish authors) then is it your problem that seeing the name makes me go "ughhhh", even if it's entirely out of context?


It's obviously not exactly possible to avoid a triggering word entirely unless you decide to never read writings with that word in them. But that's different from asking people not to use the word! If someone on TCoD said that the words 'stupid' or 'mad' triggered them, they would be well within their rights to ask the forum to please not use the words in public posts or when talking to them. But if they happen to read a book where one character says, "You are incredibly stupid," there's not really a whole lot they can do about that. Much like with your ex. It's unreasonable to ask that the entire world forever stop using certain words because they trigger someone, but it's _not_ unreasonable to ask that people with whom you can get in contact and with whom you converse regularly to stop using certain words because they trigger you, at least while they're around you. That's the point I'm trying to make - if someone were to request yiran to not use a word, he would do well to not use the word, regardless of whether he thinks that triggering is 'justified' or not.


----------



## Minish

Tarvos said:


> I agree that there's a boundary on the language people are supposed to use, and that being directly insulting is one thing, but what if my triggers come from the word "salmon"?   Or "skyscraper"? What if I am altophobic and cannot deal with the idea of cliffs or skyscrapers and it sends me into a nervous panic? Should you forbid the word skyscraper or cliff or bluff because these words trigger altophobia?


What's really the point of inventing silly situations? I've never been asked to respect a trigger for something like that! If you can't tell between someone genuinely has PTSD and someone who's just having cheap laughs, that's something _you_ need to improve on. If you can't tell, why assume the worst when someone's health is at stake? The only time I hear about weird triggers is pretty much when people invent them as strawmen.

It's kind of like with particularly unconventional pronouns. _Even if_ they invented a set nobody else uses just to feel ~unique~ or whatever, _it doesn't matter_ because you do it anyway just in case. You can't pretend you're good with things like this if you pick and choose.

... if someone is sent into a nervous panic because you're mentioning cliffs, _yes do not mention cliffs??????_ Nobody's ~forbidding~ anything, you know! It's your own responsibility to not hurt someone so massively. That was such a bad example because why would any decent person purposefully talk about skyscrapers to someone if they know it's going to hurt them.



> This is a thin line. I'll give you another thing, which is an actual example that happens to me. The name of my ex is relatively common and I sometimes see it pop up in other places. This triggers a whole set of anxieties and I have to block things out and completely isolate and just do something mindless to solve the problem. I have had to ask my mutual friend to not use the name and not talk about her. But it's a common name and if I see someone mentioning it here (say we're talking about venerated Swedish authors) then is it your problem that seeing the name makes me go "ughhhh", even if it's entirely out of context?


But I'm guessing you don't actually have PTSD? And yeah, I would honestly make an effort to avoid saying a name that hurts you. ?_?


----------



## Tarvos

Minish said:


> What's really the point of inventing silly situations? I've never been asked to respect a trigger for something like that! If you can't tell between someone genuinely has PTSD and someone who's just having cheap laughs, that's something _you_ need to improve on. If you can't tell, why assume the worst when someone's health is at stake? The only time I hear about weird triggers is pretty much when people invent them as strawmen.
> 
> It's kind of like with particularly unconventional pronouns. _Even if_ they invented a set nobody else uses just to feel ~unique~ or whatever, _it doesn't matter_ because you do it anyway just in case. You can't pretend you're good with things like this if you pick and choose.
> 
> ... if someone is sent into a nervous panic because you're mentioning cliffs, _yes do not mention cliffs??????_ Nobody's ~forbidding~ anything, you know! It's your own responsibility to not hurt someone so massively. That was such a bad example because why would any decent person purposefully talk about skyscrapers to someone if they know it's going to hurt them.


Because in a city, there are skyscrapers. People work in them. People live in them. People put signs on them. You can't account for every eventuality. Of course some triggers are going to be rarer than others, but my real question is: what is your selection mechanisms? Who are you going to account for? What are you not going to account for? If you decide not to account for certain people, is that also discrimination? 

My point is that there are things we can reasonably accept as triggers and the opposite also happens: there are things, like you just showed, that are too silly to take seriously! But my point is that you are drawing a line in the middle somewhere, and I am trying to figure out just where the hell you are drawing that line, because I have the feeling I will draw the line somewhere else. So in fact the question is: you want to draw a new line, and I am pointing out: "where the hell are you going to draw this line?" Because I am perfectly okay with not allowing ableist (or rather discriminatory in general) language use, but in that case I would like a clear set of guidelines that don't leave too much room for interpretation, because I cannot keep track of everybody's personal annoyances. I don't know all of you personally.

The linguistical thing with the pronouns is a problem that should be solved differently in my opinion - there should be a gender-aspecific pronoun in the spoken language that you can use (or some impersonal form, depending on structure) that is good to use. Swedish has solved it elegantly. I know Russian has a neuter pronoun (but that would make it sound like you're equivalent to a chair). But in English most of these solutions sound very stilted. The best I can do is use singular they, I think that is the most fair solution. Language is something we all share and need to have a consensus on, it doesn't really work if people spawn all their own dialects.



> But I'm guessing you don't actually have PTSD? And yeah, I would honestly make an effort to avoid saying a name that hurts you. ?_?


Kind of you, but you should use the name in my opinion. It is my responsibility to deal with my problems, and if I break down, that means I'm not coping. It doesn't do to live life as if you're constantly within some bubble trying to protect yourself from ham. It's a paranoid way of life when you're sheltering yourself from all sorts of damage. We are vulnerable. We can limit our triggers within reason, but if I want to discuss the author of Pippi Longstocking, famous squares in Antwerp, or do my postman round, I should be able to do it without flinching and I cannot exactly ask people to take the signs off their front doors. Responsibility is a two-way street.

And for the record, I have no fucking clue whether I am suffering from something or not, but the only thing I can say is that I have been pretty shit for the past couple of months. For various reasons. So I have no clue as how to honestly answer your latter statement. But that's a question for another day.

My point is: how, and what, do you want to enforce?


----------



## Butterfree

> ... if someone is sent into a nervous panic because you're mentioning cliffs, yes do not mention cliffs?????? Nobody's ~forbidding~ anything, you know! It's your own responsibility to not hurt someone so massively. That was such a bad example because why would any decent person purposefully talk about skyscrapers to someone if they know it's going to hurt them.
> [...]
> But I'm guessing you don't actually have PTSD? And yeah, I would honestly make an effort to avoid saying a name that hurts you. ?_?


Granted, we're talking about slightly different things here now - personal vs. public policy. It's hard to argue that the forum should have a policy against mentioning the name of Tarvos's ex, even if individuals personally talking to Tarvos would be polite to avoid it.

But I do think we have a meaningful, nonarbitrary distinction between e.g. crazy and that: the trigger for crazy is not specific to Verne, because what is potentially triggering about it applies to a large group of people in general rather than only people who have had some of Verne's specific experiences.

I'm still iffy on doling out warnings for words that only hypothetically bother someone; if someone here is genuinely triggered by the ableist connotations of something like 'stupid' or 'absurd', then let's try to avoid them, but if not, it seems like something of a pointless endeavour to undertake just for the principle of the thing and not because real harm is being caused. They seem considerably more divorced from their ableist meanings than 'crazy'; 'absurd' is never, ever used as a slur, insult or otherwise in any relation to deaf/mute people to my knowledge, so I have a hard time seeing how it could trigger someone except for some unrelated personal reason. (Granted, taking intelligence to be ableist in general, 'stupid' is worse off in that regard - though it's hard to see how that genuinely useful concept could be expressed in a way that doesn't invoke intelligence in any fashion.)

EDIT: On further reflection, stupid is definitely one of the worse ways to express that sentiment. It _is_ used as an insult against people and could fairly easily be triggering in that light; the primary mitigating factor would just be being desensitized by how commonly it's used. A lot of other words in that direction aren't used as insults and would thus be less likely to trigger.


----------



## Tarvos

Agreed. How large should the group be? I assume we are talking about things that refer to conditions such as deaf/blind/Down's syndrome/etc.?


----------



## sovram

Tarvos said:


> Agreed. How large should the group be? I assume we are talking about things that refer to conditions such as deaf/blind/Down's syndrome/etc.?


I think we're missing something here.



			
				Poly said:
			
		

> However words like 'crazy' and 'insane' are not only triggering for more people consistently, they also imply negative things about a subset of people and add to the idea that mental illness is something to be avoided, which is not a good way to look at things.


These kind of words are marginalizing. 'Salmon' and 'skyscraper' are not.


----------



## Tarvos

If they are used as a direct insult, sure, but it's not marginalising if I say "that's an insane amount of gold you've got stored in Fort Knox". Then it just means you sure got a lot of gold.


----------



## sovram

Tarvos said:


> If they are used as a direct insult, sure, but it's not marginalising if I say "that's an insane amount of gold you've got stored in Fort Knox". Then it just means you sure got a lot of gold.


"Insane" in this case (and in most cases) is meant in a way that implies that the amount of gold is too much or unreasonable. Even when used as a positive, the word tends to have connotations of excess or irrationality. Not in every case, but I would wager most of the time.


----------



## ultraviolet

Tarvos said:


> If they are used as a direct insult, sure, but it's not marginalising if I say "that's an insane amount of gold you've got stored in Fort Knox". Then it just means you sure got a lot of gold.


I think it was mentioned earlier in the thread that using crazy as an exemplifier isn't so much of a problem (though do speak up if I am wrong, someone). It's one thing to say 'I love Adventure Time, it's crazy good' but another thing to say 'Adventure Time is so weird, Pendleton Ward must be fuckin' crazy'. using crazy to connote something as bad, or weird, or over the top, or absurd, etc. is a larger problem, and this is what I feel that Verne and probably others are upset by. You're grabbing everyone who's regularly held under that label and attaching that attitude to them without them doing anything. 

But I honestly don't see what's merited by such a strong need to 'draw the line'; like I get that in principle, but in reality we're a small forum in a small corner of the pokemon fandom on the internet. If people are comfortable to say 'these words trigger me and I'd appreciate if people used alternatives', I don't see how it's going to escalate to the great lengths you're using as examples (like salmon or skyscraper being triggering. Also I completely agree with Cirrus in that I only ever see ridiculous examples when someone is making a strawman out of it). Besides, it's not like we wouldn't notice someone trolling and making up triggers for lols.

Like I dunno, if we can go to the effort to put hide tags or spoilers on triggering content, is it that much more of an effort to think for an extra half-second to think of a better word? I used to genuinely have trouble not calling things 'retarded' or 'stupid' and now I find it pretty easy to think of better words. I mean, I'm still getting there with 'lame' - even though I don't personally see how it's offensive. It's not _about _me. 

I think it would be a good idea to grab a couple words that are more or less universally agreed to be kind of shitty, and then if anyone else has more objections they can speak up? I mean most of the time I think it's common for people to send a message or post in-thread if they're uncomfortable with something, but I don't know how easy that is for them to do. I have heard it's common for people with especially unusual triggers to kinda work it out for themselves instead of asking a lot of people to work around it, but I don't personally know anyone who is triggered by something very unusual. If anyone has any real experience with that it'd be great if you could elaborate.

I don't know. I feel like this is a lot of fuss when really it's about not ruining people's good vibes when they're just trying to browse a pokemon forum.

edit:


> It doesn't do to live life as if you're constantly within some bubble trying to protect yourself from *ham*.


so this is probably entirely inappropriate and I know it's a typo, but this made me laugh. :D


----------



## Tarvos

Yeah my typing is a little bit ham-fisted lately.


----------



## octobr

I don't really get why accommodating for people who ask you not to use certain words is such a Bad Thing

there's like. more than a million words in the english language. finding an alternative is kind of easy. there are already lists for your convenience


----------



## Zee Captain

> Also the difference between a racist and me, a supposed "ableist", would be that race has little to do with a person's actual ability to do anything but whether a person is competent or not is a major factor in people's ability to do productive tasks.


I was mostly referring to the agrument tactics you were using rather than the actual content. They seem very circular with a lack of real evidence other than hypothetical opinions, for the most part.



> Actually, I try very hard for art, but I still am the worst. Probably because my school has this category which "grades" you for effort, so effort doesn't go into the actual grade...
> 
> But I agree with you, you should put them in a different class to suit them better, if it doesn't "hinder" anyone else that is unrelated.


Regardless of how the grading system works, do you understand the metaphor?

Out of curiosity, have you ever actually been in classes with disabled people? They usually don’t change what everyone is doing to fit those with disabilities; I’ve never seen that happen. One of my closest friends has muscular dystrophy and is physically unable to run or walk long distances, for example, so when we had mile times or something he would be given an alternate assignments. When my friends and I passed the ball with him or something it was by choice, nobody ever forced us to hang out with him, even though he’s a really cool guy. Anyway, usually they would give the disabled person an alternate assignment that would challenge them personally at the same level the normal assignment would to a non-disabled person. 

I really hate to sound like the whole “separate but equal” thing, but our school district at least tries to challenge everyone at the same relative level. I wouldn’t call it “hindering” to play wheelchair basketball (Heck, I’d think it was fun and I’d certainly get an appreciation for how to use those things, they can be hard to maneuver!)  but its plain unfair to try and to the opposite and bring up those who physically or mentally cannot. 

Because of that they usually group the kids with autism together so that they can all learn together. I’m sure a community feeling comes out of that as well, though my only experience with the whole class rather than individuals comes from performing a play for them a few years back. 



> I have to disagree. Obviously, using words such as "retarded" is unacceptable, and possibly even "insane" and "crazy", but if someone asks me to stop using less severe words such as "stupid" and "mad" it's not very fair, is it?


I think that’s where the matter of opinion comes in. Its impossible to cover every single trigger word, even if we banned those too. I personally wouldn’t have a problem saying the word “stupid” or “mad”, but if someone in a conversation personally requested I don’t, I’d find another alternative while talking to that person out of courtesy for their opinion. It doesn’t necessarily mean you have to change your whole form of speaking, but its like stopping yourself from saying “Oh my God” when you’re in a room full of deeply religious people. Or something. Does that make sense? 

In other words—and this is general to this whole thread as well— I think the very loaded words like the r-word should definitely be banned since we_ know_ they have a very high response, but for ones that are more watered-down, and more commonplace in everyday language, we leave that up to individuals to request it. Its not like people are going to be like “NO!” if you ask something of them.


----------

